Grognard's First Take On 4e

[hong]

In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I feel like you are still missing the point...it actually is just as good with more than one monster. Let's say you have monster A, B, C, D all 8 "hit" monsters. Now here's two examples of combat....

1st combat PC's (5) use at will powers (1 hit) first....
Total attks for monster on their turn is 4

2nd combat PC's use encounter powers (2 hits) first...
Total attks for monster on their turn is 3

3rd combat PC's use daily powers (3 hits) first...
Total attks for monster on their turn is 3

So here we see that you can lessen attrition of your party's hit points (and thus chance of dying) by opening with the daily then the encounter (which kills Monster B & C) then using the daily once there is only one monster to worry about.

Doing it in reverse means your party will take more damage from attacks by the monsters and thus there ius a greater chance you can be knocked unconscious or die before using the encounter or daily powers.

Average chance for monster to hit 50% (depends on whom they target but it seems reasonable)

So it becomes:

At will - 2 hits
Encounter - 1.5 hits
Daily - 1.5 hits.

Cost of being hit is probably less than a healing surge for a suitable encounter.

So you give up the tactical flexibility of saving encounter and daily powers for the cost of a healing surge. Not a good deal in my book.

Yes I fully understand your point that in the one 'important' battle the best tactical option is to go in all guns blazing. But you seem to be arguing that the players should treat every battle if it's the one true battle when in fact most battles are 'just' scene setting.

With longer adventuring days and battles set up with reinforcements and stages most players will be quite willing to open with at-will powers and to do so is tactically sound.

It might not be the most efficient method but it is tactially sound.

4th ed has finally created a seperation between the two scoring metrics, FINALLY

As was mentioned in one of the earlier blogs from WotC when you spend a round maneuvering to get into a decent position it DOESN'T feel a wasted round unlike 3rd ed.

 

[Imaro]

Average chance for monster to hit 50% (depends on whom they target but it seems reasonable)

So it becomes:

At will - 2 hits
Encounter - 1.5 hits
Daily - 1.5 hits.

Cost of being hit is probably less than a healing surge for a suitable encounter.

So you give up the tactical flexibility of saving encounter and daily powers for the cost of a healing surge. Not a good deal in my book.

Yes I fully understand your point that in the one 'important' battle the best tactical option is to go in all guns blazing. But you seem to be arguing that the players should treat every battle if it's the one true battle when in fact most battles are 'just' scene setting.

With longer adventuring days and battles set up with reinforcements and stages most players will be quite willing to open with at-will powers and to do so is tactically sound.

It might not be the most efficient method but it is tactially sound.

4th ed has finally created a seperation between the two scoring metrics, FINALLY

As was mentioned in one of the earlier blogs from WotC when you spend a round maneuvering to get into a decent position it DOESN'T feel a wasted round unlike 3rd ed.

Huh? In the post I was responding to, "hits" represented damage, now it seems you are equating them with chance to hit. Since this is a static, and it doesn't change based on a time factor/variable...how does at what time you choose to use an encounter or daily power matter at all? In fact taking into consideration that most powers still do damage when they miss this furthers the fact that at what point you use them, as far as chance to hit, is irrelevant and only the damage they do is the determining factor.

You later argue that opening with at-will is tactically sound...but not the most efficient option, well isn't the best tactical option also the most efficient?

I still don't see how reducing the amount of damage a party takes in a wholistic manner is in anyway not the best tactical approach. If you reduce the number of enemies quickly, regardless of how many there are, it is a bigger advantage in the long run than leaving more enemies standing with the chance to deal damage to your party. I mean this is just logical.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument here since my point is that the most tactical and efficient way to deal with a room of monsters is to unleash as much damage to specific monsters as quickly as possible to reduce the number of enemies that must be dealt with. Are you arguing this is wrong? If so please elaborate what is a better strategy.

 

[AllisterH]

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument here since my point is that the most tactical and efficient way to deal with a room of monsters is to unleash as much damage to specific monsters as quickly as possible to reduce the number of enemies that must be dealt with. Are you arguing this is wrong? If so please elaborate what is a better strategy.

Actually, it has one metagame problem. It assumes that the PC can gang up on a single monster in a 5 monsters encounter AND the monsters lose initative. Wouldn't the BEST tactic for monsters be the same thing, a.k.a, focus on one PC but that's always been true thanks to D&D not having the spiral of death.

That said, I'm not sure this is the best tactic for the PCs anyway. If a monster can take 6-8 hits and an encounter power is 2hits while a daily is 3 it actually requires two PCs to take out each monster, thus, wouldn't the PCs end up with 1-2 monsters and they only have at-wills left?

This of course assumes that the monsters are setup to allow for this

 

[Primal]

If you are a "simulationist" gamer then you should appreciate that combat does require tactics and coordination. Furthermore combat teams should alway leverage the use of combined arms to enhance their effectiveness. Good simulation use rules to generate expected results. 4e does that very well. So I guess I am not getting what you see as the real problem.

I think we may have a disagreement over what 'simulationism' entails. I see it meaning that the system models existing characters and the setting *realistically* and in detail. You see, the combat options in 4E are "class-specific" and work in very 'non-simulationist' way in my opinion -- for example, I can't just understand how the sliding/pushing stuff works from a logical POV. Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks? Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?

All of the examples above only highlight the fact that 4E is moving away from whatever degree of 'simulationism' 3E achieved into a strictly "abstracted" combat in which balance and effectiveness and teamwork are the key issues and "realism" is ditched in the name of "fun". I see the end result being very much boardgame-y, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Primal]

I did not say that they were linked. I said that 4e is just as abstract as 3e and in addition 4e will require more tactical thinking.

I disagree -- 3E was more 'simulationist' and less "abstract" than 4E. See my reply above.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think we may have a disagreement over what 'simulationism' entails. I see it meaning that the system models existing characters and the setting *realistically* and in detail. You see, the combat options in 4E are "class-specific" and work in very 'non-simulationist' way in my opinion -- for example, I can't just understand how the sliding/pushing stuff works from a logical POV. Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks? Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?

All of the examples above only highlight the fact that 4E is moving away from whatever degree of 'simulationism' 3E achieved into a strictly "abstracted" combat in which balance and effectiveness and teamwork are the key issues and "realism" is ditched in the name of "fun". I see the end result being very much boardgame-y, but that's just my opinion.

I'm just gonna break down that post to show how it would work from a logical perspective:

Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks?

Now of course this depends on the ability, we have seen some which only work on one size above and below.

The manner in which a Rogue would go about sliding a Dragon or a Golem can vary, for example with a Golem: A Rogue could lodge a dagger in a leg mechanism causing it to stutter in its steps and "slide". With a Dragon: The Rogue goes about slipping in small attacks that annoy and frustrate the Dragon, causing the beast to try and move aside.

Essentially, not every slide is the PC literally pushing the enemy himself.

Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions?

The warlord's abilities set up circumstances from which the other PCs can act, he sets up openings and such. So the other PCs can gain the chance to move and/or attack when normally they wouldn't. Same thing with the enemies, his abilities shove opponents out of the way or frightens them/disorganizes them.

And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?

We already know this is not the case from the other thread. But it makes sense that a fighter be more able then say a Wizard for example in tripping more effectively and able to deal out additional effects then a Wizard. Since he has trained in doing so, thus he understands how to trip more effectively and deal additional effects, ie: Trip and then stomps on head.

 

[Imaro]

Actually, it has one metagame problem. It assumes that the PC can gang up on a single monster in a 5 monsters encounter AND the monsters lose initative. Wouldn't the BEST tactic for monsters be the same thing, a.k.a, focus on one PC but that's always been true thanks to D&D not having the spiral of death.

That said, I'm not sure this is the best tactic for the PCs anyway. If a monster can take 6-8 hits and an encounter power is 2hits while a daily is 3 it actually requires two PCs to take out each monster, thus, wouldn't the PCs end up with 1-2 monsters and they only have at-wills left?

This of course assumes that the monsters are setup to allow for this

Yes, but look at it like this...

COMBAT 1: 5 pc's and 5 monsters( 8 hits for all)...daily used first

Round 1: (monsters first they do 5 hits, leaving PC's at 3/8/8/8/8...Pc's use daily for total of 15 hits so monster 1 is dead and the rest are 2/8/8/8

Round 2: (Monsters do 4 hits killing one PC and leaving the rest at 7/8/8/8...PC's use encounter abilities for total of 8 hits killing another monster and the remaining two are at 1/8.

Round 3: (Monsters do 2 hits and kill no PC's this round, but reduce the remaining PC's to 5/8/8. The PC's use their daily powers and kill another monster leaving the last at 4...next round they will kill his monster and no other PC will fall.

COMBAT 2 (5 PC's and 5 Monsters/ 8 hits each) start with at-wills

Round 1: Monsters attk 1st and do 5 hits to PC's leaving them at 3/8/8/8/8. PC's attk with their at-wills and leave monsters at 3/8/8/8/8.

Round 2: Monsters attack again and do 5 hits. Killing one PC and leaving the rest at 6/8/8/8. PC's attk and use encounter powers, doing 8 hits, killing one monster and leaving the rest at 3/8/8/8.

Round 3: Monsters attk again and do 4 hits, leaving the PC's at 2/8/8/8. PC's attk and use their daily for 12 hits, killing two monsters and leaving the last two at 7/8.

Round 4: Monsters attack again and do 2 hits, killing another PC, and leaving the remaining PC's at 8/8/8. PC's attk and use at-wills for 3 hits, leaving the monsters at 4/8.

Round 5: Monsters attk again and do 2 hits, leaving the PC's at 6/8/8. PC's attk with at-wills and do 3 hits, leaving the monsters at 1/8.

Round 6: Monsters attk and do 2 hits, leaving the PC's at 4/8/8. PC's attk w/at-wills and do 3 hits, killing another monster and leaving the remainding monster at 6 hits.

Round 7: Monster attks for 1 hit, leaving PC's at 3/8/8. PC's attk w/at-wills and do 3 hits...reducing monster to 3 hits.

Round 8 Monster attks for 1 hit, leaving PC's at 2/8/8. PC's attk and kill last monster.


This looks like a really big difference in effectiveness to me.

 

[BeauNiddle]

You later argue that opening with at-will is tactically sound...but not the most efficient option, well isn't the best tactical option also the most efficient?

There's a reason forces left off the battlefield are called a tactical reserve. It would be more efficient to commit all forces at once, it's more tactical to keep a reserve to handle any changing situations.

Tactics is the art of delivering maximum damage to the enemy whilst sustaining minimum damage to yourself.

Efficiency is the mathematics of calculating damage given over damage taken.

Tactics is an art and not a science due to the fact it's subjective. It alters in every battle and every situation. As you have repeatedly proved the most efficient way to deal with 8 identical monsters is to open with the daily's first.

But what if you don't have 8 identical monsters. What if you have 7 identical monsters and one monster that can raise the dead? To calculate the efficiency of the battle you'd have to calculate the probability that your first kill is the resurrector. But what if there are 2 resurrectors? Your maths shows the players can't kill both in the first attack so 'efficient'ly it's impossible for them to win the fight. Tactically they must wound both resurrectors and then, when one falls, they must finish the other as fast as possible - a task for which daily's are perfectly suited IF the player's save them for the right moment.

Okay so that's a very forced example and you're unlikely face monsters that can ressurect but it also applies to other monster layouts. Why use your daily's on the meatshields if it's the casters in the back that are causing the most damage? Why use your daily's on the artillery when they are just there to draw you towards the soldiers?

Many comments were made about 3.X's theoretical "15 minute workday" just because it could be shown to be much more efficient to use the "nuke 'em from orbit method". The problem was there wasn't anything in the rules for 3rd ed that made it sensible to have multiple encounters in one day. There were suggestions to have 4 encounters a day but no rules making it worthwhile.

In 4th ed the main resource you have is healing surges. The rules limit the number you can spend in any one encounter so that you are unlikely to spend a third of them in any encounter. Therefore the RULES support the idea of having multiple encounters since it wouldn't be efficient to have a full rest with 60% of your resources unspent. (There are also action points and milestones which further encourage adventuring). If the rules themselves encourage multiple encounters then the players should learn to judge which encounter (and when in the encounter) to spend their daily's.

 

[Primal]

I'm just gonna break down that post to show how it would work from a logical perspective:

Now of course this depends on the ability, we have seen some which only work on one size above and below.

The manner in which a Rogue would go about sliding a Dragon or a Golem can vary, for example with a Golem: A Rogue could lodge a dagger in a leg mechanism causing it to stutter in its steps and "slide". With a Dragon: The Rogue goes about slipping in small attacks that annoy and frustrate the Dragon, causing the beast to try and move aside.

Essentially, not every slide is the PC literally pushing the enemy himself.

Yet the dragon does not avoid a fighter's greatsword in like manner? I wouldn't mind if the whole "forced movement" thing was done via some sort of combat "maneuvering" check -- it would make sense. But most of the stuff is not linked to anything like that -- you attack and if you hit, you inflict damage, and *then* the enemy is (as the result of the damage) pulled/slided/shifted. Sorry, but to me that tells that it's the actual *damage* of a successful attack which moves the opponent -- not the action or any sort of clever combat maneuvering (e.g. an Acrobatics check against REF or something).

The warlord's abilities set up circumstances from which the other PCs can act, he sets up openings and such. So the other PCs can gain the chance to move and/or attack when normally they wouldn't. Same thing with the enemies, his abilities shove opponents out of the way or frightens them/disorganizes them.

And why can't a fighter try that? Or a paladin? Should be it allowed to do with an Insight check, and if not, what 'pseudo-magical' quality makes the Warlord able to "demoralize" opponents and seeing "openings" where even veteran fighters do not? Do you see my point here? For a more simulationist-minded the rules and the explanations just don't make sense.

We already know this is not the case from the other thread. But it makes sense that a fighter be more able then say a Wizard for example in tripping more effectively and able to deal out additional effects then a Wizard. Since he has trained in doing so, thus he understands how to trip more effectively and deal additional effects, ie: Trip and then stomps on head.

More effective, yes, but that's not the case here -- the wizard, or a ranger/paladin/rogue/etc. cannot even *attempt* to trip an opponent, unless the DM allows the PC to try an improvised combat "stunt" (ATK vs. REF, I'd dare assume). And if that's possible, I wonder why the power exists in the first place?