Combat balance

[ExploderWizard]

Forked from: Are PC defenses too low?

I suppose I'm risking a threadjack to reply, but while it is not new or unique to 4E, I maintain that it is much more significantly reinforced in the mechanics than it was in prior editions and, hence, more relevant and important. If you are interested in discussing further, I'm happy to take this to a new thread. I think it's an interesting issue.

Good idea to fork. I would like to discuss the issue of balanced combat systems and why people prefer or do not prefer more balance in thier system of choice.

As far as 4E reinforcing the effects of setting and terrain moreso than prior editions I agree that the rules have done so. I also feel that this leads to encounter design built around exotic/quirky prepared battlegrounds that often feel forced and out of place in order to make for a more interesting combat.

If combat requires a specially prepared soundstage in order to make it feel exciting and different then perhaps the core rules sans environment might be lacking in some way ?

I prefer less pre-engineered balance, more swing and a sense that its possible to have fantastic non-ablative effects occur in a combat. I don't want to have to set up every conflict on a movie set to get this feel. The participants should bring the excitement, the terrain and environment are icing on the cake.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't think there's any response to this other than 'different strokes for different folks'. To be honest my views on this are pretty basic.

IMO D&D's combat is never going to be complex enough to make a straight, toe-to-toe melee seem particularly thrilling, nor would I want it to be. Excitement comes in a combination of powers, stunts, environment, surprises, roleplaying... the whole nine yards. The scene is the thing, not the repetitive parry-riposte of half-a-dozen rounds of combat.

As for swinginess... it's gone, and good riddance, but yes, it puts the pressure back on the setting and the DM to add that extra thrill or two into the fight.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno, I have always felt that environment is a equal party in a encounter. Equal to both PCs and Enemies. It always plays a role in various novels, movies, television, etc. so I think it is good that it has a much larger impact this time around.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be "staged" though. I think one can come up with plenty of environmental scenarios without staging it. At least that has been my experience so far, the influence of the environment comes naturally.

I personally am glad the swinginess is gone because it means that I as a DM can have more space to create interesting encounters both in environment, traps, conditions and enemies without worrying about how much that will swing the fight.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

For me, this issue comes down to the following question: What makes combat fun and interesting? Clearly this question has many answers. I believe 3E and 4E share many of these answers, but their mechanics differentiate them in a couple of respects. In 3E, more of the excitement comes from the "swingy" nature of many spells and abilities (higher variance in the outcome). In 4E, more of the excitement comes from the increased variation that results from increasing the number of enemies, the number of powers for some classes, and perhaps the number of interactive terrain elements.

So 4E aims to help the DM by making combat less swingy: we have reports of several DMs who feel empowered to take off the kid gloves because it's not so easy to obliterate the PCs accidentally. But does this benefit come at the cost of placing a burden on the DM to keep combats more interesting by coming up with varied terrain?

In 3E, I think players sometimes got away with poor tactics because of the dice, and DMs got away with "lazy" encounter design because the dice added the inherent excitement of unpredictability. In 4E, I've noticed that tactics and teamwork become much more important on the player side, and similarly (some?) DMs must perhaps put more thought into encounter design to avoid the grind.

As wedgeski said, it probably boils down to different strokes for different folks.

 

[Mallus]

If combat requires a specially prepared soundstage in order to make it feel exciting and different then perhaps the core rules sans environment might be lacking in some way ?

Since the fantasy adventure stories (in print and film) that inspire D&D rarely feature fight scenes that take place on flat, featureless planes, I don't see this as a problem.

I'm glad more frequent movement is now baked into the combat system. Fights in previous editions often felt like matches of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots into which fireworks were occasionally shot.

 

[Umbran]

Here's the thing, as I see it.

Toe-to-toe slugfest simply doesn't do it for me. That's uninteresting.

So, you are gong to need to put something into the rules that makes folks want to do otherwise. As soon as you do that, terrain becomes an issue - if you aren't standing still, whatever terrain you have (even an open, bare room) will favor one combatant or another, depending how they use it.

So, terrain is going to matter. Might as well support that.

As for "swinginess" (not that I'm a fan of that word), I don't like it much anyway. It generally works more against the PCs than against the monsters. And, as a DM, I don't need any help killing off PCs. I can do that all on my lonesome.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm glad more frequent movement is now baked into the combat system. Fights in previous editions often felt like matches of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots into which fireworks were occasionally shot.

Agree here!

3.5 didn't reward movement. Well, it did for fighters below 6th level and for wizards or other spellcasters. It didn't reward anyone who had multiple attacks, two-weapon fighters, and heavy armor wearers.

The full-attack was the death of tactical movement in 3e.

 

[Cadfan]

I prefer less pre-engineered balance, more swing and a sense that its possible to have fantastic non-ablative effects occur in a combat. I don't want to have to set up every conflict on a movie set to get this feel. The participants should bring the excitement, the terrain and environment are icing on the cake.

This is probably a question of different tastes. I come from a euro game background, and the idea of getting your fun from mathematically swingy combat makes me want to post snobby things about the superiority of wooden cubes over plastic dolls.

A few people on this forum will understand that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is probably a question of different tastes. I come from a euro game background, and the idea of getting your fun from mathematically swingy combat makes me want to post snobby things about the superiority of wooden cubes over plastic dolls.

A few people on this forum will understand that.

ummm. sure.

Lets just say that I see grinding away at hit points as something that happens when other options fail. Its never the plan to start with. Starting a combat grinding hitpoints is like starting a pro wrestling match down on the mat with a headlock. And the headlock continues, then gets reversed ect.until one guy gets too bored and lays down for the pin.

 

[Cadfan]

Right, you dislike grinding hit points because you want interesting things to happen.

My objection is that casting one spell and then winning, or rolling a critical hit and then winning, or any of the other hallmarks of swingy, die-centric combat, are not "interesting things."

Maneveuring through the center of the battlefield so that you can mark the most tactically advantageous foe is interesting. Skirmishing around the edge of the battlefield so that you can flank and cut down the ideal target without getting pinned down and killed is interesting. Working as a team to line up optimal shots with artillery like area of effect spells is interesting. Providing support to the optimal members of your team at the best possible times in order to improve your side's chanes of victory is interesting.

You seem to view "interesting" as meaning "surprising," or "suddenly changing." I view interesting as "requiring significant tactical decision making." Your interesting kind of kills my interesting, and vice versa.