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

[Cadfan]

Bo9S classes are more varied than standard fighters in their combat tactics, but they do tend to develop habits just like any other melee class.

Certain Bo9S character builds are more staid in their tactics than others. A warblade who focuses on Iron Heart maneuvers might have one good attack versus single foes, one good attack versus multiple foes, and a battery of boosts and counters to defend himself from various kinds of threats. Chances are he'll play basically the same every time you fight a horde of enemies, and basically the same every time you fight a single monster. But that's more variety than we've got with regular fighters, and because he can change his maneuvers known every level, there is a degree of variety as he levels up.

Other classes are much more complex in their tactics. A Shadow Hand focused Swordsage is ridiculously fun to run, if you like complex melee decisions. He's got a stance that gives him a defensive miss chance if he moves a certain distance, he's got another stance that gives him sneak attack damage, he's got feats that sync with his powers to let him teleport short distances and go invisible if he meets certain conditions, and he's got maneuvers that only work against certain foes. So he's basically always in motion, always looking to line up this round a chance for a short range teleport next round into position to unleash a strong maneuver.

I'm firmly convinced that its the most tactical fun available in D&D with a melee class.

 

[ruleslawyer]

"Tick-based" seems to be the latest gaming buzzword, and I freely admit I'm only inferring the meaning from context, and may not be using it properly (mainly I was responding to ruleslawery's comment about tick-based systems).

But in essence, I take it to mean a system which has a resource which you have "tick marks" that you track, and certain things happen when you reach a particular threshold (whether automatically or player-initiated). IH's tokens are one example. The description of Mongoose's new Traveller Initiative systems seems to be another.

In that case, I wasn't being clear. I was referring to tick-based systems in the context they're used in MMORPGs: You use an ability or attack, and then you have a certain number of "ticks" before you can use the ability again. Tokens effectively simulate this within the context of a round-based system because you need to recharge.

 

[Nifft]

Risks depend on how the maneuvrs are built. They might include one or more of the folloiwng:
-penalty to hit
-drawing AoO's (might be from your target or everyone) which might ruin your maneuver
-opponent gets a free strike
- full-round action
-giving up damage
-lose Dex to AC until next action
- an opposed check
-opponent has chance to use the maneuver on you
-you suffer the maneuvers effects as well
-opponent's save negates the effect

Here are some helpful links from the Malhavoc website

Preview: sample maneuvers from Chapter 1
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_preview

Web Enhancement: bonus maneuvers
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_webenhance

Web Enhancement: Cheat sheet for building maneuvers
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_cheatsheet

Thank you! Interesting, particularly the stuff behind the links.

I'm not sure I want things to work that way -- but as a way of thinking, it's pretty sweet.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Nine Hands]

I've played IH one-shots at a local gaming store and got stuck with an archer both times. I feel your pain. Still, I enjoyed what I saw enough that I bought the books. For the play-style it supports, it's excellent. I just don't think it'd be a good fit for standard D&D. Many classes would just be another archer waiting to happen.

When I run Iron Heroes at OGC, there is a line out the door of people who WANT to play the archer, while the Berserker was not very popular. I think this all has to do with play-style. The archer aimed at opponents he knew wouldn't be taken out right away while the Berserker just didn't get hit enough for it to matter.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

To go back to the OP's initial point, I don't really see how a tick-based system would alleviate patterns in gameplay. It just adds the extra step of having to earn some tokens at the beginning of your patterns. Instead of using the SuperSmash maneuver at the start of each combat, the Berserker will run into a group of enemies at the beginning of each combat.

I think the best strategy here would be to introduce enough powerful but situational maneuvers that it would be in the players' best interest to switch things up. For example, you might have the SuperSmash maneuver that does +40 damage, but also the BeatDown maneuver that does +60 damage but is only usable if you move less than 20ft that round. (Or only if you took damage in the previous round, or only if your enemy is Bloodied, or whatever.) That way, things change with every battle, and there's a bit of strategy involved in setting up the right conditions to let you use your most devastating maneuvers.

I actually expect this is more or less what WOTC is shooting for. We've already seen hints of what seem to be reaction/counterattack maneuvers and other fun stuff. But we'll have to wait until the summer to see if they pull it off. ;-)

 

[ruleslawyer]

To go back to the OP's initial point, I don't really see how a tick-based system would alleviate patterns in gameplay. It just adds the extra step of having to earn some tokens at the beginning of your patterns. Instead of using the SuperSmash maneuver at the start of each combat, the Berserker will run into a group of enemies at the beginning of each combat.

Unless you start with tokens, of course! Many IH classes do, for instance.

I think the best strategy here would be to introduce enough powerful but situational maneuvers that it would be in the players' best interest to switch things up. For example, you might have the SuperSmash maneuver that does +40 damage, but also the BeatDown maneuver that does +60 damage but is only usable if you move less than 20ft that round. (Or only if you took damage in the previous round, or only if your enemy is Bloodied, or whatever.) That way, things change with every battle, and there's a bit of strategy involved in setting up the right conditions to let you use your most devastating maneuvers.

My only concern with doing it this way is that it gets complicated. There are plenty enough complaints about 3e's tactical complexity; having conditional triggers for abilities just seems to be pouring more complexity into the mix. I do see how this could work... if they can streamline the mechanics enough.

 

[hong]

Something as simple as "roll 2d6 for how many tokens you start the fight with" could also work.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Something as simple as "roll 2d6 for how many tokens you start the fight with" could also work.

Hmm, reminds me a bit of Initiative. The gamist in me wants immediately combine this - trade a high Initiative for a lot of tokens, or compensate your low Initiative with few tokens. But then, I think initiative isn't as important in D&D (3rd edition at least) as it in other games (like Shadowrun or Torg), so it might not be fair. (And it's obviously very "gamist")

There are plenty enough complaints about 3e's tactical complexity;

An interesting question is, what complexities of 3e make the game hard, and which make it more enjoyable? I am not sure there is an answer that fits for every player or group, or if there is an easy distinction at all.

Things I don't like: Adding a lot of modifies that vary each round. Too many players (myself included) seem to have troubles with adding numbers fast. It takes to much time.
If all your options do is adding more modifiers, I am not so fond of them. (At least if there are multiple options that can apply simultaneously with different stacking rules and different modifier ranges)

Attack of Oppertunity arere complicated because there many special circumstances that could cause them, and anyone can provoke them from anyone.
If "Immediate Counter Attacks" were more tied to the actions between two opposing characters, they might be easier to handle.
"Your opponent charges you." "Oh, I use my immediate Anti-Charge/Trip power against him"
Different from "Opponent X takes a move-only along this path" All players begin counting squares and checking if he is moving more than 1 square in their threat range. (or worse, the DM and the players are discussing which way the NPC should move to minimize AoOs)