• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Legends and Lore: A Different Way to Slice the Pie

Scribble

First Post
So fine, we add to Magic Missile "Using Magic Missile while adjacent to an enemy gives him a free attack against you." What about Thunderwave? Well, that doesn't need it I guess, so we don't include it. But Scorching Burst? That provokes, so we have to add to that one "Using Thunderwave while adjacent to an enemy him a free attack against you". Could of Daggers? Same thing. You will have to replicate this rule dozens, perhaps hundreds of times for each class.

They already do this with powers.

It's one added line for powers that make sense, and it solidifies the concept of how the game works.

Right now it's everything you need to know to use X power is in the info about your powers and abilities- except for these rules you need to memorize for some reason.

This would make it, everything you need to know about the game can be found in the information about your powers and abilities.

(Although in truth I'd be very surprised if they managed to not have ANY base rules at all...)


True, you may not be playing a mage, but you'll be going up against enemy artillery. So now the DM needs this printed on every monster stat block where its appropriate as well. That's another few hundred iterations of the same basic rule.

True... Ink IS expensive. :p

So what? They reiterate 1dwhatever + whatever over and over, this is just another line.

A big problem though is that I just noticed a mistake in the text! I said "provokes a free attack", which might imply that it's a free action. However, it's an opportunity action, so now I need to issue some errata. I now have to track every single individual instance of that rule in every bit of published material.

Only the ones you made the mistake in.

In fact this actually opens the system into different types of "base rules" instead of just a cookie cutter style.

They could do something along the lines of still keeping the names of effects, like Dazed, Helpless, etc... But the individual powers would have their own explanations for what that means.

Characters hit by this power are Dazed and suffer X effects...

That way a Cleric or something could still have a power that removes or mitigates the "Dazed" effect, but exactly what that meant could change as the game progressed, without having to relearn a rule over and over.


If that's what you want though, then why not find a system that offers that, instead of complicating the D&D system by creating these complexity tiers through repeated instances of the same rules cropping up explicity, rather than being defined in a rules section?

One could argue that it's just going back to being closer to how D&D was originally. ;)

AD&D and D&D were a mess of hodge podge systems, which was problematic because it made things confusing, but at the same time for many it made the game feel more expansive.

This seems like it tries to split the difference. Allow for an expansive system, that doesn't get crazy unplayable. :p

I get that some people like things very categorized, so I'm not saying it's perfect for everyone... I just don't think it's actually as big a change as people seem to be thinking. A lot of it already works this way in 4e. This would just be expanding that focus.


P.S. [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] I will try to respond to your post at some point but unfortunately... at 6pm on the night before I don't have to be back in the office until Monday... That is WAYYYY to Wall of text for me. :p
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

R

RHGreen

Guest
The OA is mainly only ever going to be used by Melee classes. And out of the Melee classes mostly the Defender classes. The Defender classes all have some sort of ability that targets close enemies so it would not be a great stretch to just include the mechanics in those class' relevant powers.

The OA penalty on ranged attacks isn't really based on any real logic other than they are balancing the ability to attack at range. Why would firing a bow cause an OA where as not doing anything doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to strip out the ranged attacks causing OAs and just give the ranged attacks a penalty to attack adjacent targets, which is more logical anyway.

Summary:
Delete OAs.
Integrate OA mechanics fully into Defender Auras, etc. (or any non defender power that seems reasonable)
Ranged attacks gets penalty to hit adjacent (or other mechanic that seems reasonable.)

Benefit:
Give the OA ability to those who really care and need it. Pump it up if need be.
Take it away from anyone who doesn't care and can live without having to know about it. (Like a skinny bloke with a stick.)


Just a thought.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The OA penalty on ranged attacks isn't really based on any real logic other than they are balancing the ability to attack at range. Why would firing a bow cause an OA where as not doing anything doesn't?
'Not doing anything else' still lets you defend yourself. It's not at all hard to hit someone at point blank range, the problem is not getting hit yourself. Really, to be 'realistic,' a character making ranged attacks should provoke in melee /and/ a character not wielding a melee weapon should grant CA in melee...
 

R

RHGreen

Guest
Okay, don't agree with the OA, you can still dodge with a bow, but a compromise could be an AC penalty instead. You are easiler to hit because you are not jumping around as much. In fact I prefer that as it makes most sense and I can't understand why you would suddenly get an extra attack against someone because he has an arrow pointed at your face. Personally, I see that as a very good reason to move in the opposite direction.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I can't understand why you would suddenly get an extra attack against someone because he has an arrow pointed at your face. Personally, I see that as a very good reason to move in the opposite direction.
Well, it's a really good reason to smash the bow with your melee weapon, but 4e doesn't go in much for Sunder.

Most creatures can make one melee attack per round. But, rounds are about six seconds long. It doesn't take six seconds to swing a sword. Enemies engaged in melee (even if they've just moved adjacent, and neither has gotten to make an attack in game terms yet), are trading blows the whole time - some are dodged, some are parried with a weapon or blocked with a shield, some are negated with an agressive move (like a fencing 'stop thrust). When you're not armed, that's six seconds where you're /just/ dodging, very much on the defensive. Pause to take a bead on someone down range - or try a point-blank shot - and you're exceedingly vulnerable, which means one of those many swings that happen in those six seconds is likely to connect before you get your shot off.

That's the (OK, one possible) rationale, anyway.
 

Doctor Proctor

First Post
They already do this with powers.

It's one added line for powers that make sense, and it solidifies the concept of how the game works.

Right now it's everything you need to know to use X power is in the info about your powers and abilities- except for these rules you need to memorize for some reason.

This would make it, everything you need to know about the game can be found in the information about your powers and abilities.

Fine, it's one line...for OA's. What about a power that's ranged, immobilized, dazes and is save ends? Now you have a line for OA's, a line for explaining immobilize, a line for explaining daze, and a line explaining save ends. That's four lines now. And some powers are even more complicated than that! (After effects, first failed save, differing effects on a hit or miss, etc..)


True... Ink IS expensive. :p

So what? They reiterate 1dwhatever + whatever over and over, this is just another line.

The Wizard alone has 406 powers in the Compendium. Let's say, 2 lines per power on average (they're controllers, and so often use Ranged or Area attacks that cause one or more conditions...2 lines on average probably isnt' that far off, and may even be a bit conservative), which makes for 812 additional lines. Or, to put it another way, if you assume say, 8 lines for a power after the standard headers (name, fluff, action type, etc...) then this is adding almost 25% to the size of the power blocks.

Only the ones you made the mistake in.

And how will know which ones those are? Simple...by checking each and every individual instance of the OA rule appearing in a power.

In fact this actually opens the system into different types of "base rules" instead of just a cookie cutter style.

They could do something along the lines of still keeping the names of effects, like Dazed, Helpless, etc... But the individual powers would have their own explanations for what that means.

Characters hit by this power are Dazed and suffer X effects...

That way a Cleric or something could still have a power that removes or mitigates the "Dazed" effect, but exactly what that meant could change as the game progressed, without having to relearn a rule over and over.

Which will be a design nightmare. Do you give the Cleric a way to completely remove Daze? I mean, you don't even know what it really is anymore! Sure, you could say that right now it's XYZ, but in 3 months there could be a new Dungeon article or a new Monster Manual that has a totally new type of "Daze" that now gets totally negated by the Cleric's power. Balance would be very difficult to maintain with a system like this...

One could argue that it's just going back to being closer to how D&D was originally. ;)

And automobiles originally didn't have safety glass, seat belts or air bags. Doesn't mean we should return to those days... And if you like the older editions of D&D for that reason, that's fine...go play them. You can still find the books and tons of groups that play them. But why turn the new edition into a clone of the old editions? There's your complexity dial! Do you want 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, etc?


The OA is mainly only ever going to be used by Melee classes. And out of the Melee classes mostly the Defender classes. The Defender classes all have some sort of ability that targets close enemies so it would not be a great stretch to just include the mechanics in those class' relevant powers.

Tell that to my Dragon Sould Sorcerer who wore a Cestus on the left hand specifically for punching people in the face that thought they could move past the guy in the robes. Or my Execution Axe wielding Dragonborn Ardent with Intent Laid Bare. He likes to mix it up in melee and get his OA's in as well. So do Strength Clerics and melee Rangers. In other words, no, OA's are most definitely NOT the sole purview of the Defender classes.

The OA penalty on ranged attacks isn't really based on any real logic other than they are balancing the ability to attack at range. Why would firing a bow cause an OA where as not doing anything doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to strip out the ranged attacks causing OAs and just give the ranged attacks a penalty to attack adjacent targets, which is more logical anyway.

That's assuming that your OA is because you're attacking an enemy adjacent. To the lurker standing behind you while you line up a bow shot on an ally 15 squares away, you're just a guy whose attention is elsewhere and is now wide open to attack.
 

Daven

First Post
I think that Analysing Cook's proposal we should forget about 4E.
I think he is talking about a game in which a wizard at 1st level has a choice of about ten spells, in which a fighter can only swing the sword (or axe... forget polearms), in which rogues can not backstab until 3rd level... and so on.
A game in which difficulty is proportional with pc-level. Do not concentrate too much on how could 4e be presented in a way of these, because it's impossibile.
Sostantially he is proposing a totally different game, very simple at the beginning, very hard at the end.
I think that this is the most absurd thing that he has proposed until now. The worse, the "donotplayd&danymore"-thing.
I hope that he will not go in this way...
When we played d&d in the past, we had this kind of presentation (I think at BECMI), and I found it a nightmare: "where is that damn rule that i red one time?", "Look, wow, now I am 4th level and I've learned to swim! Wow", "Ah, ah, now that I am 9th, I can finally have more copies of my spellbook! Tremble rogues!" and so on...
"Few rules, many exceptions" is the keyphrase for 4e (and 3e apart from the spells). I do not find it very difficult to learn. Even a friend of mine that did not read any d&d-rulebooks in his life (15 years of playing), has played d&d 4e without any problem. It is so standardized that it is easy to remember. In 3 years of playing of 4e, it was 4-5 times that I red a rulebook during playing.
I know, its entry level is tough, but not so difficult to read and remember one thousand rules like it would be if Cook's idea takes place.

P.S.: I add a thing: my opinion would change a lot, if this kind of presentation would be parallel to a more evolute presentation, like a compatible d&d and Advanced d&d. If they do two or even three lines of products, in which there are the same rules, but presented in a different way, I can like it. For example, if they did the Essential line in a very simple way like this, it would have been an entry line for new players. Certainly it would be better done before the "hard" game, not after.
 
Last edited:

I don´t agree with Monte Cook, that oppotunity attacks were not used (I don´t know the game without them from 2nd edition and later), and that such rules should only be mentioned where they are needed. It is far more easier to have a few rules that are used over and over again stated out.
Another example is the condition index. While it may not be totally confortable to look conditions up, and you may disagree on the numbers of conditions, you can have feats and spells that effect them in a standardized manner. You just know what a feat does without kowing every spell.

However, agree with Monte cook, that complexity should go up with level. Not rules complexity (D&D 4e is fairly simple in most regards), but option complexity. A first level character should not be forced to browse through 33132414 feats.
Organizing them by category and alowing each character to pick from certain feat (categories) at a certain levels seems reasonable.
For a first level character it should be sufficient to pick a class and one or two weapon category/Implement feats (expertise feats) and be done with it.

Powers at first levels could be reduced, combat options could be reduced... why does a fighter need a bonus to opportunity attacks at 1st level. 3rd level would be enough... why does he need a daily there?
Why does the mage need encounter powers at first level? Why not give them their first power word at 2nd level and make it an improved version of an at will, or a reduced version of a daily?

(the above are just examples and you could find a lot of arguments against it, but for a beginner, or someone trying a new class, you really can´t decide if something works in actual play as you believe it to work on paper. I don´t want a single daily at 1st level for wizards back, but having 1-3 startup levels for any class seems reasonable to me. Add in a rule to start at level 3 or 4 and noone should be sad)
 

The OA is mainly only ever going to be used by Melee classes. And out of the Melee classes mostly the Defender classes. The Defender classes all have some sort of ability that targets close enemies so it would not be a great stretch to just include the mechanics in those class' relevant powers.

The OA penalty on ranged attacks isn't really based on any real logic other than they are balancing the ability to attack at range. Why would firing a bow cause an OA where as not doing anything doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to strip out the ranged attacks causing OAs and just give the ranged attacks a penalty to attack adjacent targets, which is more logical anyway.

Summary:
Delete OAs.
Integrate OA mechanics fully into Defender Auras, etc. (or any non defender power that seems reasonable)
Ranged attacks gets penalty to hit adjacent (or other mechanic that seems reasonable.)

Benefit:
Give the OA ability to those who really care and need it. Pump it up if need be.
Take it away from anyone who doesn't care and can live without having to know about it. (Like a skinny bloke with a stick.)


Just a thought.

I would argue that the simpler rules are the consistent rules where ALL characters can do OAs when specific conditions exist, the current rule, vs making everyone learn that only certain characters can do it. Everyone still has to know the rule, at least SOME monsters will have to be able to do them, so the DM would have to remember which ones those are, etc. If, as you say, your rule isn't going to take it away from anyone that will actually need to use it meaningfully then IMHO it isn't any simpler.

If you want to streamline action economy in combat IMHO the way to do it would be along these lines:

1) Ditch the minor action - trivial things like drawing a weapon etc would simply become free actions. This gets rid of a whole slew of very unclear rules about switching and drawing weapons. It also removes the temptation to create minor action attacks, which are a whole other problematic aspect of the game. Sustaining of powers can simply be automatic.

2) Immediate Reaction - simply get rid of it. Anything that is now handled by immediate reaction can be handled as an interrupt. This will necessitate some adjustments to other mechanics, but nothing that the game can do now will be impossible to implement as an interrupt. This eliminates an entire class of action, simplifying the rules.

3) Opportunity Action - Just get rid of this as distinct from immediate interrupt. You can take an OA but you only get one per round. This also eliminates another type of action. It will limit the effectiveness of OAs somewhat, but not a whole lot and is no more or less 'realistic' than a character being able to make limitless OAs in a round. It tends to open up tactics a bit as well. Defenders can still have special mechanics to allow more effective stickiness if desired, which is no more complex than what we have now.

4) Ready Action - simply combine this with delay. There's no overwhelmingly compelling reason for needing both. Anything you can do with readied actions you can basically pull off with a properly designed delay.

This will eliminate a bunch of rules without materially changing the tactical flexibility of the existing 4e combat system. It would necessitate a lot of minor rewriting of powers and whatnot, but presumably '5e' would necessitate some changes to all of that anyway, so it is really a wash.

There are a lot more things that can be done outside of action economy as well, but all of that will need to be considered in the greater context of streamlining and cutting back on the proliferation of powers. Those are the other side of the coin. I'd considerably cut back on the numbers etc, but that's been discussed pretty extensively in other threads. I'd go with a pretty significant cutback on the types of durations as well. Most daily powers should either do something instantaneous or something with encounter duration. I'd reduce all the -2's and +2's in effects to some kind of 'chit' that you either have or don't have and shed at the end of your turn or else keep. Actually one way to handle that would be to just give out a specified number of chits. On your turn if you have chits you lose one. If you have blacks you get a -2, white chits you get a +2, etc. If someone gives you a white chit it just cancels a black or vice versa, otherwise it sticks around. All the other various effects can generally be rewritten as "the target does X right now" for the most part (IE jump, the target gets to jump right now). This eliminates a LOT of tracking nonsense. I suspect a number of conditions can be eliminated that way. If you have black chits you're 'granting CA'. Dazed is effectively the same thing. Stunned can still exist, maybe it is basically what Dazed is now. Combine Restrained and Immobilized. There are probably some others too. Slowed can probably just be jettisoned, it adds little to the game on its own. Weakened seems useful.

I think that and a general philosophy of just making situations where tracking is required and sticking to a very short list of non-condition effects would provide a considerable amount of streamlining. With reduced numbers of in-combat power effect options and probably a bit smaller numbers of overall power slots I'd make things like surprise and advantages from terrain more significant. Instead of devising all sorts of clever tricks based on action economy and such the players can spend some extra thought on getting the jump on their enemies and taking tactical advantage of terrain. That helps keep different classes well balanced, keeps tactics important, and gives the DM some more useful flexibility in encounter design at no extra burden during play.

I'm relatively confident that combat can be made 30-50% simpler along these lines and cut at least a quarter and maybe a half of the time spent on most encounters without any drastic reduction in overall quality of combat.
 

Daven

First Post
Your proposal is very agreeable. In fact you propose few options at first levels, not few rules.
The fact is that Cook proposed a rule system complexity based on level, and not just options amount like you.
Anyway, I hope D&D R&D will not get along this bad idea of him.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top