D&D 4E I would rather not have 4e combat "powers" in D&D Next

[YRUSirius]

For the record, I am not saying that powers should never exist in D&D in any form. Or that any playstyle is "badwrongfun". I wouldn't mind that such rules existed as an optional expansion. I just don't want them part of the core.

No need to be afraid of anything then. Maneuvers will be in a module. Just ignore them.

-YRUSirius

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, Mearls in his AMA thing last weekend pretty much straight up said that 4e elements are not going to be baseline core because they're too complicated. Makes sense. 4e combat is certainly not simple. That's the point of it.

So, yup, 4e style powers and whatnot are going to be mostly an add on module to layer on complexity onto a simple system. The core system might have a few goodies for different classes, but, by and large, it's going to be the "pelt the enemy with dice until it falls down" approach to in combat tactical elements.

 

[pemerton]

4e had this thing called Page 42, but in years of playing that edition I've never seen it used, once.

Interesting. I see it used all the time in my game.

The problem with the martial "encounter" powers, narratively
then becomes...why can't I remember how to throw sand in the ogre's eyes? Or try it again.

Your character can. It's just that the mechanics of the game dictate that it will fail - or, at least, won't produce any mechanical result different from just rolling your d20 for an attack (of course, if you successfully roll an attack there's nothing to stop you narrating it as having benefitted from more sand in the ogre's eyes).

That's the nature of metagame mechanics. Complaining that encounter powers don't map to PC decisions in the gameworld is like complaining that turn-by-turn initiative doesn't map to the actual movement of the characters and monsters in the gameworld. As I posted upthread, both are metagame systems to ration player resources: turn-by-turn initiative establishes an action economy, and encouter powers establish an effect economy.

Even classic D&D, which has semi-continous initiative, still has a type of action economy. Why can't I attack twice in a round at a penalty to hit? Why do I get only one chance per minute to get in a substantial blow - even against a giant slug? There is no explanation for this from within the gameworld.

Now obviously not everyone likes metagame systems for rationing resources. But complaining that they're nonsensical because they're metagame strikes me as missing the point.

Maybe the next ogre, who sees how you did it to his friend, will avert his eyes from you when he sees you reach for your sand-pouch, but that should just give disadvantage, not mean that you can't even attempt it.

<snip>

Just freestyle it.

<snip>

The straight-jacketing of targetting, intended use, scope, and conditions to use things, which don't make sense at all and probably won't end up being balanced anyway, don't belong in a rules system where you are expected to wing it. That's the actual fun of the game.

<snip>

I don't want to play chess.

There are pros and cons to freestyling it. I mean, you could freestyle the whole of combat, but most D&D players don't. (Call of Cthulhu, on the other hand, lends itself well to freestyle combat.)

You can freestyle magic, too, but most D&D groups don't. They rely on a chess-like "strait-jacketing of targetting, intended us, scope and conditions" called memorisation rules and spell descriptions.

I want to be able to improvise spitting in the enemy's eyes to distract him then knee him in the balls to cause him to lose his next action while I escape with the necronomicon.

Out of interest, how do you adjudicate this in AD&D? In 3E?

In 4e it sounds to me like a STR attack vs Fortitude to daze until the start of the target's next turn. (That won't cause the loss of any actions, but will negate oppy attacks while I run away, and all my friends will get combat advantage while I run away.)

The real issue in adjudicating this sort of thing is getting the balance right - because if it's strictly better than standard attacks, it's all anyone will ever do. It's with that balance in mind that I suggest above that the daze would be until the start of the target's next turn.

Hey there's a lantern with oil over there, teetering over the enemy's battle plans, if I magic missile or throw a rock at the lantern, that shouldn't be prevented by the rules or even require looking up "do I have permission to do that?" Why can't I target things with my attacks? Some enemies are constructs, and thus are "things", but not in 4e. All enemies are creatures, that are alive or undead, or something. I can target a square but not an object? What use is this stupid power when I can't be allowed to do cool things with it?

I'm not sure what rules you're reading, but the 4e DMG has a section all about using powers to do thinks like attack hanging lanterns. Maybe you missed it.

 

[Zaphling]

another 4e hater. can you please just stay silent with your 'opinions'. its annoying. zzz


It is also annoying and not acceptable to tell people to "stay silent." Either post something relevant to the discussion, and politely so, or stay out of it.

 

[FireLance]

This also begs the question how is an encounter measured...If a party defeats a band of kobolds only to get ambushed by reinforcements less than a five minutes later is it the same encounter? Does the fighter get to use his encounter powers again against the reinforcements? (I'm not extremely familiar with 4e, so perhaps I'm missing something.)

Just to make it extra clear, an encounter power is regained after a short rest. If you don't take a short rest, you don't regain your encounter powers. Really, they are no different from daily powers (and, just to be clear, you need to rest to regain them, too) except that you can regain them after resting for a shorter time.

 

[pemerton]

Just to make it extra clear, an encounter power is regained after a short rest. If you don't take a short rest, you don't regain your encounter powers. Really, they are no different from daily powers (and, just to be clear, you need to rest to regain them, too) except that you can regain them after resting for a shorter time.

You say this like you've said it before!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd rather have them. What now?

No need to be afraid of anything then. Maneuvers will be in a module. Just ignore them.

-YRUSirius

That could work.

 

[ComradeGnull]

So here's what I find a little hard to suss out about the whole 'modular' thing:

In a base/core system where DM/player negotiations and reasonable-ness are the major rule, it seems like a fighter should be able to execute some combat maneuvers- disarm, pushing the opponent, tying up a weapon, tripping, etc. Without an AEDU-like system, any of these things can be done as often as the player would like to try them- they just have to be in a position where it is tactically reasonable, and they may incur some risk for attempting them. Both of those things seem well in the realm of things that a DM and player can work out together.

So enter the 4e-style AEDU snap-on tactical combat module.

Now, instead of being able to try these maneuvers anytime they might have a chance of working, an AEDU fighter can only do them x times per encounter/day. You might not be able to do them at all if they lack an appropriate power. It seems like the AEDU combatant is somewhat hamstrung in comparison with the non-AEDU combatant, who can just attempt anything they want whenever they want using the improvise guidelines.

So the question is, how do you make both the AEDU and non-AEDU character work without either a) taking options away from the non-AEDU character or b) making the AEDU character have fewer options than the basic character? What's the advantage to using the AEDU rules, other than 'my DM and I disagree about the circumstances under which a disarm or trip is feasible, and this removes the ambiguity'?

 

[Bluenose]

It just seems like a focus on dozens of different powers really turns combat into a tactical wargame and requires a lot of bookkeeping. That is fine in a game if you want it . However, I don't really enjoy that type of playstyle as much. I find it is much easier to add elements to a game than to remove elements already deeply integrated. Therefore, 4e style powers should appear as an optional module rather than the core assumption.

Say the same about spells. Watch the complaints.

 

[Essenti]

So the question is, how do you make both the AEDU and non-AEDU character work without either a) taking options away from the non-AEDU character or b) making the AEDU character have fewer options than the basic character? What's the advantage to using the AEDU rules, other than 'my DM and I disagree about the circumstances under which a disarm or trip is feasible, and this removes the ambiguity'?

This seems like an odd question. First off, there is nothing saying that the 5e version of tactical combat will look exactly like 4e. It would be odd if it actually did and also quite difficult to achieve.

At any rate, the point of AEDU is that a character is designed to pull off a very specific power, whatever it is, although there is still a chance to miss. But the player doesn't have to ask the DM, "Can I try X?"

Basically, there would end up being overlap, the CORE fighter can ATTEMPT to do all kinds of different manuevers, although the DM has definitive say in what actually happens. The AEDU fighter can make those same ATTEMPTS or burn an encounter/daily/utility and achieve a very specific manuever that they are talented at, with builtin rules that determine exactly what happens.

Personally, I prefer the open system rather than AEDU, but I don't see a conflict.