Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3752208" data-attributes="member: 4937">Most of this was evident from the sample fight versus the dragon.  We knew that there was no full attack because neither the fighter nor the dragon used one.The biggest problem in losing full attacks is handling attacks on multiple opponents in a round elegantly.Based on the sample fight versus the dragon and a few more hints, we know how thats going to work too.1) 'Triggered attacks' : I'm not sure of the exact mechanics, but it was clear that the dragon got to make attacks in responce to PC actions.  Similarly, we've seen examples of attacks made by PC's in responce to NPC actions.  The mechanic will probably be something similar too 'If you are attacked by a character with lower level than you, and he misses, then you can make an immediate counterattack.'   Similarly, the dragon's tail strike mechanic is probably something similar to, 'Whenever you are flanked, you can make an immediate counterattack.'  Essentially, this is the cleave mechanic on steroids.2) Combat Talent Trees:  Depending on the weapon that you use, there will probably be mechanics similar to the 'rapid fire' feat for archers, allowing you to make multiple attacks with various restrictions (penalties to hit, lower combat damage bonus, restricted to multiple opponents, only if you hit the first time, only if you cleaved, etc.)  There will likely be talent trees that give you more triggered attack options as well (ei, when surprised, when flanked, when missed, when hit, etc.).  Given the emphasis on large groups of opponents, this means that PC's will probably be making (on average) more attack rolls per round than in 3rd edition.  Ditto for the DM.My biggest gripe is that movement in and of itself neither makes combat interesting nor 'cinematic'.  For example of what badly corregraphed combat looks like, see the 'climatic' fight scene in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Theives.  Lots of movement, but its all really silly and uninteresting.  For an example of good fight corregraphy, see Errol Flynn Robin Hood or the climatic fight in 'Rob Roy'.  The elements of the D20 system that tend to make combat cinematic are not the actions per se, and I greatly fear that the direction that 4e is taking to make combat more cinematic is actually one of my pet peeves with the D20 system.   Or to put it more plainly, I love 'feats' but there is an element of thier design which really irks me (which tended to show up extensively in homebrew and third party feats), and 4e seems bent on reinforcing that part that I don't like.  Namely, I never liked how feats served to open up new combat manuevers (ways to spend your actions) rather than simply making you better at them.  If for example, you'd need a 'trip' feat in order to trip or a 'bullrush' feat in order to shove someone, I'd really have hated the 3e mechanics because it impaired rather than enabled.  The problem with 'special' hit point bypassing combat manuevers in D&D (or practically any other game system) is that they are extremely hard to balance.  Do them wrong, and it invalidates normal attack actions so that combat ends up being tripping, pushing, and grappling each other to death alla 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' rather than the lengthy cinematic swordplay that we want.  Ask anyone (ab)using Improved Trip how this works out.Besides which, I think that we are largely chasing a false dream if we make 'cinematic' a core value.  Pen and paper games will never compete with visual media like movies or video games for cinematic eye candy.</blockquote>

Verification