D&D 4E 4E vs. Iron Heroes- per encounter abilities

[Sir Brennen]

Lots of videogames use tick-based mechanics; cooldown mechanics are tick-based in essence (e.g. WoW).

ZOMG! You used the "V" word!

Seriously, I think people tend to forget that videogames support more "real-time" playstyle and mechanics using ticks and such, which often involve watching many factors, if-thens and lots of math, because ... hello... the gamemaster is a computer. Some game mechanics which work perfectly smoothly on my Intel Duo might bog the game down a little at the analog table.

I'm fine with pulling stuff from the videogame world for tabletop RPGs, when it can be done without undue complication. As a Guild Wars player, I'm itching to see if I can replicate the concept of the various character attributes as talent trees in 4E, and possibly translate the game's skill system into spells, feats and maneuvers. I'm thinking about classifying spells that negatively affect targets as "hexes" and beneficial ones as "enchantments", with spells and abilities that take advantage of the difference. But all of these things are pretty "static", mostly coming into play during character creation, or spell selection.

I wouldn't want to translate GW's Energy and Health systems over, both of which are primarily "tick-based", and of course important mainly in combat. So many things to make them go up and down, in chunks or X per second (where X can change wildly.) Again, something a computer is great for, but would be a bookkeeping chore at the table.

Ticks, tokens, whatever... I just think that with the current goal of making combat more streamlined (a concept I agree with), tracking such things round to round is going in the opposite direction. Most players of IH that I know agree that combat in that game is just as complex as it is in standard D&D, despite the lack of spells and magic items.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

ZOMG! You used the "V" word!

Seriously, I think people tend to forget that videogames support more "real-time" playstyle and mechanics using ticks and such, which often involve watching many factors, if-thens and lots of math, because ... hello... the gamemaster is a computer. Some game mechanics which work perfectly smoothly on my Intel Duo might bog the game down a little at the analog table.

For instance, I really enjoy the "initiative" system in Heroes of Might and Magic, and it would be interesting to try to do something similar in a tabletop RPG, but on a practical level, I'm uncertain of its implementation.... basicly it would involve at least one extra roll at the end of every PC and NPC action and a constantly increasing rather than cyclical and decreasing initiative count

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ticks, tokens, whatever... I just think that with the current goal of making combat more streamlined (a concept I agree with), tracking such things round to round is going in the opposite direction. Most players of IH that I know agree that combat in that game is just as complex as it is in standard D&D, despite the lack of spells and magic items.

Though as a player, I can usually enjoy this complexity. But it's certainly not that everybody enjoys, and I think it's also not so great for beginning gamers.
I think Iron Heroes main design goals was to remove magic from the character's power, while still allowing a lot of tactical options and resource management. I think it did all this very well.

But these aren't entirely the design goals of 4th edition. One of the goals of 4th edition seems to be making it easier to manage high level characters and monsters, and I think Iron Heroes is not the best model for that. (Except for the Villain Classes, which _really_ help me as a DM.)

 

[Sadrik]

I agree, IH had some problems in implementation of some of its classes and how they generated their points (tokens). However, that does not mean that the whole concept needs to be thrown out. For instance, it could be as simple as tying the power source to how you generate points. Arcane: taps the arcane energy around them, Divine: calls their god for aid, Martial: draws upon their training and experience in some way and Psionic: focuses their mind through meditation. These are not gamy but very flavorful imo- it is applying a mechanic to the flavor.

And again, does it seem to make sense that at the beginning of an encounter every character gets all of their maneuvers up front so that in rapid succession that can blast 'em off? With a Wizard this makes sense- because that is how we have always had them. They balanced their spells between this encounter and the next encounter (and theoretically the 2 after that). But now they can fireball every encounter- what is the point. In my mind it seems like they need to still diminish between each encounter at the least. I still like the idea of having an arcane caster act like a battery- starts at half power but can draw more points to them by taking an action.

 

[ruleslawyer]

But these aren't entirely the design goals of 4th edition. One of the goals of 4th edition seems to be making it easier to manage high level characters and monsters, and I think Iron Heroes is not the best model for that. (Except for the Villain Classes, which _really_ help me as a DM.)

I haven't DMed high-level IH yet (my current game is up to 8th level) but I'm thinking that the lack of magic probably simplifies high-level play, no? That said, this issue can't apply in 4e D&D anyway, since core magic use (including items, etc.) is going to clog up gameplay at high levels unless, as the designers have stated, the math is redone from the ground up.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Ticks, tokens, whatever... I just think that with the current goal of making combat more streamlined (a concept I agree with), tracking such things round to round is going in the opposite direction. Most players of IH that I know agree that combat in that game is just as complex as it is in standard D&D, despite the lack of spells and magic items.

As mustrum_ridcully said, I enjoy that complexity myself, but yes, it's not for beginners, and certainly, IH-style combats plus D&D magic and buffs is going to get ridiculous in terms of gameplay. That said, *if* they're really simplifying the math across all levels in 4e, then ticks or tokens may be implementable without generating overcomplexity. The major advantage of IH-style tokens (especially in combination with zones, stunts, and all the other mechanics) is that combat doesn't begin with an unloading of the big guns and then peter down from cooler ability to less cool ability. Instead, PCs "spin up" to access their best abilities at critical moments in a fight, making fights more cinematic.

 

[Pbartender]

The major advantage of IH-style tokens (especially in combination with zones, stunts, and all the other mechanics) is that combat doesn't begin with an unloading of the big guns and then peter down from cooler ability to less cool ability. Instead, PCs "spin up" to access their best abilities at critical moments in a fight, making fights more cinematic.

Of course, the major disadvantage of the IH system is that its current design forces most characters to actively waste precious actions to spin up those abilities... Instead of allowing those abilities to spin up as a natural byproduct of doing what the class does best. Then, add in to that, the "targetted token pools" of some classes -- invalidating rounds worth of effort when your chosen target changes or disappears.

My players and I are just finishing up an IH campaign... In all honesty the archer and the weapon master don't get a whole lot of use out of their token pools. The theif's Politcal Mastermind token pool has come in handy once or twice, but it simply takes too long to build up the necessary tokens. Until he died, the berserker was the only character who regularly used tokens. That was only because he got them every time he got hit... He wasn't required to spend actions to gain them, and he lose them, if he switched targets.


If, in amongst the standard at will/per encounter/per day/etc. abilities, they include special actions and abilities that are automatically triggered off of something else happening, I think that would be perfect. Reading through some of the examples already given by Wizards, it looks like they already are going that route.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I agree entirely that more token generation needs to be reactive, and not target-dependent (the WM in particular is much better in hong's implementation than in core, in part for this reason). More tokens per action also would resolve this issue (hong's house rules again!).

Can't say I agree with you regarding Political Mastermind, though. The thief IMC uses this like crazy, and it's super-powerful. One Diplomacy check gives you enough tokens to start going, so it should be getting a lot of use in more social games.

 

[Sadrik]

The major advantage of IH-style tokens (especially in combination with zones, stunts, and all the other mechanics) is that combat doesn't begin with an unloading of the big guns and then peter down from cooler ability to less cool ability. Instead, PCs "spin up" to access their best abilities at critical moments in a fight, making fights more cinematic.

Conceptually I really like this much better than the current way I understand 4E per encounter powers to work.

Having the powers tied into the characters "action" points seems to make a whole lot of sense. Action points seem generic enough that there is a separation between what they represent and what they actually do. As an example if a character gets 5 action points and they are a fighter/Wizard and they want to use a fighter power (cleave) they spend X action points and then they want to turn around and cast invisibility then they spend X action points and go invisible. Very quickly they run out of action points- but they can get their action points back by doing a recharge action based on what power source they are- in this case they can recharge use either an arcane power tap action or a martial refocus action. Either one would generate some more action points for them to use during the combat.

 

[hong]

I'm fine with pulling stuff from the videogame world for tabletop RPGs, when it can be done without undue complication. As a Guild Wars player, I'm itching to see if I can replicate the concept of the various character attributes as talent trees in 4E, and possibly translate the game's skill system into spells, feats and maneuvers. I'm thinking about classifying spells that negatively affect targets as "hexes" and beneficial ones as "enchantments", with spells and abilities that take advantage of the difference. But all of these things are pretty "static", mostly coming into play during character creation, or spell selection.

I wouldn't want to translate GW's Energy and Health systems over, both of which are primarily "tick-based", and of course important mainly in combat. So many things to make them go up and down, in chunks or X per second (where X can change wildly.) Again, something a computer is great for, but would be a bookkeeping chore at the table.

Actually, I'd say GW's adrenalin system is an even better match for any putative token/tick system that would be used for D&D.

It all comes down to granularity. Videogames can have high detail because the computer is doing all the bookkeeping, but you could have a lower-detailed setup for p&p. Eg, very simplified adrenalin token system:

- gain 1 tick every round you get hit
- gain 1 tick every round you land an attack
- use 2 ticks to power a special ability
- use 4 ticks to power a better special ability

You could represent your current pool using chits, dice, coins, or whatever physical tokens are handy. This doesn't seem too complicated for PCs. NPCs might be another matter, but that's where the villain classes come in, as has been mentioned.