It more or less does…for players. For monsters they kneecapped the ability to do stuff like that on the fly, and anything even remotely resembling a ‘taunt’ effect against players has almost always been rejected, doubly so for nonmagical ones.
Not relevant to the present discussion but incorrect. Effects that preclude player agency or cause PCs/NPCs to act in unrealistic ways are objected to. There are any number of ways to implement taunt effects without these.
I suspect ‘fiddly’ and ‘inconsistent’ are editorials, since most of the monster abilities were just riders, AoEs, or Save Ends effects, none of which are what I would call fiddly, especially since 2 of those are present in 5e as well. You’re also going to have to elaborate on what action types were unavailable to everyone, since you can definitely make basic attacks, bull rush, grapple, and aid another without needing class support to do so.
And again, wrong.
Fiddly -
awkward or difficult to handle because of many small parts or details.
Some 4e special ability examples:
Yuan-ti Malison Sharp-Eye -
Code:
Longbow (Standard; at-will) <> poison, weapon. Range 20/40; +18 vs AC; 1d10+6 damage, and the yuan-ti malison sharp-eye makes a secondary attack against the same target. Secondary attack: +16 to vs Fortitude; ongoing 5 poison damage, and the target is dazed (save ends both).
Code:
Chameleon Defense: Concealment against attacks that originate more than 3 squares away
Yuan-ti Malison Incanter -
Code:
Deflect Attack (Recharge 5-6): Transfers attack's damage and effects to an adjacent ally
Code:
Mindwarp (Standard, at-will)<> psychic: Ranged 20; +20 vs AC; 2d6+7 psychic damage and the target is dazed (save ends)
Code:
Poisoned Domination (Standard; recharges when first bloodied) <> charm: Ranged 5; affects a creature taking ongoing poison damage; +20 vs Will; the target is dominated until the end of the incanter's next turn. Aftereffect: the target is dazed (save ends).
This is not even a full listing of the special abilities from two related monsters. In short: Effect types varied, ranges varied, attack bonuses varied, damage types varied, defenses varied, exceptions varied. Frequently within the same stat block. None had any consistent logical basis. It was frequently prohibitive to keep track of different abilities in mixed encounter groups without wasting valuable play time flipping back and forth between listings. Let alone if you had multiple monster species types in the same encounter (instead of variations on a single monster type, which at least would be lumped together). Adverse conditional effects were often so anemic as to be barely worth keeping track of and rarely lasted more than a round or two. This isn't an issue that was unique to 4e (cf Pathfinder), but 4e had a propensity for a bazillion unique character and monster abilities instead of standardized procedures for attacks, spell-like effects, and maneuvers.
You’re also going to have to elaborate on what action types were unavailable to everyone, since you can definitely make basic attacks, bull rush, grapple, and aid another without needing class support to do so.
pemerton said:
I'm sorry that you had bad experience with 4e, but what you describe doesn't fit my experience at all - so far from "squelching an non-hit things action", 4e had the most mechanically robust set of improvisation guidleines (p 42) and non-combat resolution guidelines (skill challenges) of any edition of D&D.
I say squelch because maneuvers in 4e were implemented in a manner so as to render them worthless. Example: Two combatants are fighting atop a parapet. Combatant A decides to try and throw combatant B off the edge. In 5e this is simple - grapple check and done. In 4e this is technically impossible without some of class or monster-specific power because grappling could only pull an enemy behind the grappler. Even houseruling a grapple attempt to work in 4e required forgoing not one but two entire rounds worth of attacks (one to initiate the grapple and a second to move the enemy) with two chances to fail, making it a nonviable option.
pemerton said:
Whereas the mechanics tend to be prety central to resolving a whole lot of actions at the table. For instance, flavour text saying that ogres are notorious wrestlers is going to fall a bit flat if they don't get to add the Prof bonus to checks to grapple or shove. Various posters upthread (I think one was @
Shadowdweller00 - yep, post 32) have suggested giving the ogre fetid breath that stuns or otherwise debuffs the PCs - and those suggestions all involved mechanical expression.
And your own example of an ogre being able to inflict the frightened or poisoned condition by breathing on its enemies and succeeding at an opposed skill check does not count as a generic tactic the system should model, does it? It's not as if the PC fighter can eat a clove or two of garlic and then make this sort of debuff attack vs a group of kobolds (is it?). And what stat/skill would the PC use? not Intimidate, presumably, as (i) they're not trying to intimidate the ogre, and (ii) that would suck for fighters, who should be the best at resisting this: it looks like it should be resolved like any other AoE debuff in 5e - the ogre sets a DC and the PCs have to make CON saves.
I think you miss my point. A generic tactic is precisely how I'd personally run this. And yes, I'd let players attempt this too if there was a solid in-game and in-character basis: Not from simply eating a clove of garlic, unless the PC is trying to affect a vampire maybe, but if say a character had established a propensity for terrible hygiene and/or eating rotting foodstuffs and tried to use the tactic against an enemy that cared about cleanliness I'd certainly consider it. (Barbarian living in squalor vs Drow, for example).
Saelorn said:
Both of your examples are strictly less effective than simply attacking with a club. An ogre who tried either of those would be more likely to die without dealing any damage, compared to a basic ogre who stands a good shot of dropping one or two PCs. (Unless the ogre uses a grapple check to pick up a PC and then hurls them off a cliff, which puts it into the save-or-die category.)
Nothing personal, guy, but that's a mathematically illiterate statement. They're circumstantial, sure. But in general - making an enemy prone is worth the cost of an action if two or more allies with more than half equivalent offense can attack (with advantage from the prone condition) before the enemy can stand up. Inflicting the frightened condition or poisoned condition isn't effective at dealing damage, but if they prolong the fight for more than one attacks by allies...
More to the point though, as Sacrosanct went into, DPR isn't the defining characteristic of a good or interesting fight. Just so long the enemy STILL provides a reasonable challenge for its CR with alternate tactics.
