Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6070297" data-attributes="member: 42582">In real world melees, I don't think combatants make one swing and then stand around watching while everyone else takes a poke.Then let me add in the additional qualification - while also having a standard to-hit chance.I've never seen any argument that every magic-user's day in AD&D looks remarkably the same. Even if the same spells have been memorised, the timing and sequence of their use will reflect the varying nature of the ingame situation. Likewise in 4e. For instance, the first attack made by the fighter in my game yesterday was an opportunity attack, because the invoker slid the fighter into a position to block a haures demon trying to charge out of a tunnel. And the fighter's first standard action was Battle Cry (11th level warpriest close burst encounter power), because by the time the fighter got to act one of the PCs had been bloodied and needed healing badly. I can't remember the last time the fighter led with Battle Cry.In my four years of playing 4e, I've never seen anything like what you describe. Variations in disposition of the PCs, disposition of the enemy, terrain, encounter stakes, etc all produce very different sequences of play.For instance, in yesterday's game movement was very constricted - 7 phantom steeds and 6 PCs fighting teleporting enemies in a 3-square wide tunnel. The paladin led with Astral Thunder ahead of Strength of Ten because he could hit more targets and there was nowhere to push anyone. The previous fight, which took place in a cavern around 100' in diameter, was very different in terms of mobility and hence targetting.It depends entirely on the situation. It's very common for the sorcerer in my game, for instance, to open with Blazing Starfall - an at-will - because his encouner powes have greater control, which he uses later in the combat when the necesary control tactics become more evident.The only character who routinely leads with encounter powers is the invoker, because his at-will powers are noticably weaker as far as control is concerend.Whereas in the first session of 4e that I ran a player tamed a rogue bear (improvised Nature and Diplomacy, from memory), while in the second session the same player, in combat with a wight, spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get advantage against it (improvised Religion).For those whose combats have little improvisation or deviation from a script, I don't see how you think things will be more interesting if fighters have no abilities, or use a "power point" system that permits repetition, or can only do interesting things by sacrificing damage or to hit chances.There is no ingame fiction until it is narrated by someone. So the ingame fiction always has to "adjust to the use of the metagame" - ie be narrated in accordance with the rules. There is nothing magical about fiction that is read off process simulation rules, compared to fiction that is narrated to fit with an outcome such as that mandated by Come and Get It.Why does Bob not try again? He doesn't know that he can't knock a foe prone, only that he doesn't.But in fact, how many builds are there that can knock a foe prone only once per battle? Because 4e, like 3E before it, encourages tactical specialisation (in damage types, weapon types, etc) there is a strong likelihood that any given PC will have multiple powers that can do similar things. For instance, the polearm fighter in my game has multiple forced-movement encounter and daily bursts, plus Footwork Lure at will.Furthermore, as I said upthread, who (in the gameworld) is keeping a tally? Just as I assume that my wizard PCs aren't calculating the ratio of orcs killed to new spell-levels mastered (both XP and levelling are purely metagame constructs that would be absurd if incorporated into the ingame perspecive), so I assume that my fighter PCs aren't tracking the ingame manifestation of metagame constraints. And I assume that noone is calculating that, over the long run, exactly 1 in 20 blows is a critical, whoever the combatants involved.</blockquote>

Verification