Grognard's First Take On 4e

[AllisterH]

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

.

I think right there you kinda shortchanged the monster. Most monsters have a basic attack but also a STRONGER attack as well at least on the order of an encounter power (even if it needs to be recharged). 5 monsters ganging up on one PC should be able to kill said PC in one round (the 1st level kobolds certainly can gank any one PC if they all surround one)

Again, it also only works if the situation allows for one monster to literally be gangpiled on. Which I don't think actually happens that often.

 

[AllisterH]

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?

Trip wasn't used much as is. IMPROVED trip though was but it too effective in that a tricked out Tripper was uber-annoying until you had encounters where it once again because useless.

So, as a designer, you want to allow people to trip other people and make it a viable combat option instead of just swinging their sword, yet at the same time, not make it so effective that it gets done ALL the time.

That's probably why it became an encounter power. You can make it effective yet at the same time, not have it dominate combat.

As for the issue of "powers", I think there's a hint of pro-magic in these discussions in that nobody questions how a spell works because it's magic (and that's not an excuse. A proper simulation would have actual rules defining what magic can and can not do)

 

[crosswiredmind]

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.

D&D has never done this. "To hit" has always been an abstraction for a series hot smaller swings and attacks. "Hit points" have always been an abstraction for toughness, luck, experience, etc. "AC" has always been an abstraction for the mobility and damage reduction provided by armor. D&D has never been a realistic simulation at any level.

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?

Or, perhaps like "to hit" has always simulated a series of attacks and parries the rogues ability is a result of a series of strikes and feints that shifts the relative positions of the combatants.

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?

The Warlord is adept at command. His ability is that of a tactician and a drill sergeant. He has the ability to command and help shape movement on the field. And as to fighters and tripping - some have learned how to do it and some have not.

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.

There is no realism in 3e to be ditched. What they have added in 4e is an abstract sense of movement on the battle field that is just as abstract in its execution as any combat element already in 3e.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

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).

It isn't that the damage is what causes the being to move (though in some cases it could, ie: kicked in the crouch you stumble back). It is simply a conglomeration of what the actions the Rogue takes in that turn.

So the attack the damage and the shifting are all rolled into one complete whole. Essentially it does the same thing if you had multiple roles for each thing, it is just cut down to be faster/more elegant.

I think anyone who have experienced the shift in combat from oWoD to nWoD in terms of amount of dice used would agree with this view.

As for the Fighter, if the attack the fighter has doesn't cause shifting it is simply because during that turn of combat the Fighter didn't do anything to provoke the Dragon into moving.

The Powers and how they are used is simply a mechanical-shortcut to create a narrative throughout the combat session.

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.

Once more the "Insight Check" is within the usage of that combat power.

So with a Warlord he is trained and focused on battlefield control and giving advantages to his allies and disadvantages to his enemies.

The Fighter yes can certainly cause openings and demorale the enemy outside of his "Powers", this goes into ordinary strategies the party employs. But during the period of him actually doing something, the Powers he has are focused on certain aspects and completing such aspects.

This is the whole point behind classes is to have a focus.

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?

Umm... Yes they can attempt a trip. We already know they can. It is a simple action, not something more complex that is combined into a single Power.

Thus why with a Fighters "Trip Power" he isn't simply tripping, he is tripping and stabbing the enemy in the gut.

Essentially Powers are a way to shorten and also highlight certain aspects of a class they be able to pull off and do easier then others. That are generally more complex or not the focus of another class.

If you want a class to do everything, as equally complex and with equal focus then.... Why are you playing a class based system at all? Or not allowing Fighters to naturally have the same abilities of a Wizard?

 

[Primal]

Trip wasn't used much as is. IMPROVED trip though was but it too effective in that a tricked out Tripper was uber-annoying until you had encounters where it once again because useless.

So, as a designer, you want to allow people to trip other people and make it a viable combat option instead of just swinging their sword, yet at the same time, not make it so effective that it gets done ALL the time.

That's probably why it became an encounter power. You can make it effective yet at the same time, not have it dominate combat.

As for the issue of "powers", I think there's a hint of pro-magic in these discussions in that nobody questions how a spell works because it's magic (and that's not an excuse. A proper simulation would have actual rules defining what magic can and can not do)

I've never claimed that D&D is a simulationist game at its core (it's highly gamist, if anything), or that 3E managed to implement simulationism better than, say, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster or Hero. However, I *do* claim that 3E managed to do it better than 4E. As for magic, I'm a bit confused what you're after here -- I think 3E pretty much has more or less clear-cut rules on what magic can do and what it can't (unless you're referring to "limitations" such as Ars Magica has?).

You're correct about Improved Trip, but I have a house-rule that using any "Combat Feats" (i.e. Sunder/Improved Trip/Improved Disarm/Stunning Fist et al.) is a *full-round* action. Now, if you want to use that uber-combo to down/disarm/stun your opponent with one attack, you have to sacrifice all your attacks to land that one powerful attack. It's a choice, and I feel it makes combat more "grittier" and a bit more realistic (i.e. you have to wait for the "perfect" moment). That once/encounter stuff is not very realistic, because even in a duel you may fall for the same trick more than twice (even if you pay attention to your opponent). And, it's nowhere near as "effective" as landing, say, three or four attacks on your opponent, but it may be tactically sound against certain opponents (and even the outcome is not certain).

 

[hong]

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).

You are solely responsible for your construction of the narrative.

And why can't a fighter try that? Or a paladin?

Of course they can try that. They just have to take the appropriate game-mechanical feature that allows it.

 

[Primal]

D&D has never done this. "To hit" has always been an abstraction for a series hot smaller swings and attacks. "Hit points" have always been an abstraction for toughness, luck, experience, etc. "AC" has always been an abstraction for the mobility and damage reduction provided by armor. D&D has never been a realistic simulation at any level.

3E managed to implement *some* level of simulationism, but I agree that there are many systems which do it far better (see my reply above). Again, I never claimed that D&D has done it *well*, but IMO 3E does it better than 4E. Now, that is not inherently a bad thing -- as Keith Baker noted on the WoTC boards, 4E may not be a "better" system for simulationist-minded groups. Yet I agree with him that it *is* D&D and for gamers who do not mind about lesser degree of simulationism it may work far better than 3E ever did.

You're correct that (A)D&D combat was very abstract in nature (e.g. combat rounds lasted a minute and consisted of several attacks, ripostes, parries, dodges, etc.), yet 3E -- as I've noted -- added more simulationist aspects to it. It never achieved "realism", though.

Or, perhaps like "to hit" has always simulated a series of attacks and parries the rogues ability is a result of a series of strikes and feints that shifts the relative positions of the combatants.

It did in AD&D, as I mentioned above, although it felt odd when you suprised and backstabbed a guard, for example... you still fought with him for a minute and yet he didn't have the chance to raise alarm!
So that's probably the reason why 3E rounds were "shortened" to represent a smaller time scale and fewer actions.

The Warlord is adept at command. His ability is that of a tactician and a drill sergeant. He has the ability to command and help shape movement on the field. And as to fighters and tripping - some have learned how to do it and some have not.

Any fighter or paladin could also become a master tactician and/or a drill sergeant with full understanding and command of movement on the field. Yet they can't grant extra actions to their allies or control their movements.

Tripping... in 3E, at least my scrawny wizard or destrous rogue could *try* to trip his opponents, although it wasn't probably very wise under most circumstances. Now, taking Improved Trip represented the training, and any sort of mechanical "abuse" seemed to disappear when you made it a full-round action.

There is no realism in 3e to be ditched. What they have added in 4e is an abstract sense of movement on the battle field that is just as abstract in its execution as any combat element already in 3e.

Oh, there's some realism in 3E, although it's not actually a simulationist system (as I've stated above). And I think there's much more abstraction to 4E combat, since it's quite clear that they've stepped away (and even admitted doing so) from any level of simulationism 3E achieved.

 

[hong]

You're correct about Improved Trip, but I have a house-rule that using any "Combat Feats" (i.e. Sunder/Improved Trip/Improved Disarm/Stunning Fist et al.) is a *full-round* action. Now, if you want to use that uber-combo to down/disarm/stun your opponent with one attack, you have to sacrifice all your attacks to land that one powerful attack.

... or you could just play 4E. Seems to save an awful lot of house ruling.

 

[crosswiredmind]

Oh, there's some realism in 3E, although it's not actually a simulationist system (as I've stated above). And I think there's much more abstraction to 4E combat, since it's quite clear that they've stepped away (and even admitted doing so) from any level of simulationism 3E achieved.

It must be a relativistic thing. I played RuneQuest most of my gaming life (which started in 1976). Compared to RQ - 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e are all completely abstract and I just don't see the fine distinctions that you see.

I guess this is just one of those agree to disagree things.

 

[Hussar]

I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.

I think this may have been addressed earlier, but, I really don't understand this. How does calling attention to the roles which have always existed, suddenly change the tactics?

Also, why do each tasks need to be performed in a particular order in order to be the best? I suppose it makes sense that you would trip first and then bludgeon the baddy, but, that's always been true. Or you would open the combat with an area of effect spell then charge in. Again, that's unchanged.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Imaro - I think you are taking a fairly simplistic view of encounter design. In all honestly, it sounds an awful lot like a 3e design - each encounter is self contained, does not overlap with other encounters and all of the actors in that encounter are known at the beginning.

This is certainly true in the vast majority of modules designed for 3e that I've seen.

4e seems to be moving away from that, from what we've seen. Your encounter should span a number of areas, with various actors entering the combat at various times. In the GRZ podcast, they mention the Lurker role for monsters - something that hasn't been exploited as much in 3e. So, you open the door to the room, see the four undead and think, "Hey, 3 standards and an elite" and open up with your dailies.

Only, you can't tell which one is elite, so, which one do you blast with a daily? And, then it's the monster's turn and suddenly, even though you've blasted two of the baddies with your dailies, a fifth monster pops out of the woodwork (like the wraith can do) and now your dailies are expended.

Plus, you might just have blown dailies on minions. Maybe those four baddies are just minions - zombie minions for example, and you've just dusted them all, only to find that those four brutes come crashing out of their coffins.

Opening with dailies in the first round requires you to have a fair bit of knowledge about the fight in front of you. It might very well be that you will do so sometimes. Particularly if you are ambushing someone for example. But, I highly, highly doubt that it will be the best option in every fight.

In 3e, where encounters were typically self contained, with the actors known beforehand, combined with the fact that any of those actors can kill you in one round, it made perfect sense to blow through your big weapons ASAP. The fight was likely only going to last three, four rounds anyway, so, use it or lose it.

We know that fights are meant to last much longer now. Your example gives the monsters WAY too much firepower. At no point should the PC's be facing creatures of equal power. You have the baddies killing the PC's in the same amount of hits that the PC's require to kill the baddies. I think you will find that encounters should never be that powerful.

Again, I think it's a 3e prejudice, where it was likely true that a given monster could kill a given PC with equal numbers of rounds of attacks. In other words (cos that's an ugly sentence) a CR 10 monster that takes 8 hits to kill, could probably kill a Lvl 10 PC in 8 attacks. We know that this isn't true in 4e. A monster that takes 8 hits to kill probably requires significantly more attacks to kill a PC. Why? Because the monsters aren't meant to be fought alone, like 3e monsters were.

So, your dogpiling monsters will likely take two or three rounds to kill a PC with standard attacks, while the PC's can likely do it in half the time.

I think that's where your example goes wrong.