Playtest: managing per encounter abilities of a Rogue and Fighter

[Imaro]

Play Guild Wars some time.

Unfamiliar with the game, so if you could further expound on the example it would be appreciated.

 

[TerraDave]

In my experience, I have seen the opposite: People usually starting with low level or moderate powers to get a guage on the opponent(s) and deciding if they have to bust out the big guns.

The only time I don't see this happen is when PCs are fighting something they know is tough.

I guess that is the problem...my PCs always know its going to be tough.

 

[Cadfan]

I have mixed feelings about combos. On the one hand, complexity is complexity. Even if you don't know or want to know about it, it can bite you if the group contains players with differing levels of mastery of the mechanics. While Fred is gamely hitting orcs for 10 points each round, Joe is dealing (an average of) 50 points by smart use of combos. On the other hand, you do want a level of tactical richness in the game, so that it doesn't become bland after 6 months.

The implied assumption is that Fred will eventually want to smarten up, and learn about those combos so that he can match Joe. This is okay up to a certain point, beyond which it starts feeling like work.

Granted, overly complex combos would be obnoxious. I'm arguing for combos of about the level we've seen in Tome of Battle, just a few more of them.

Maneuver 1: Demolish target flanked monster.
Maneuver 2: Move up to half your movement without provoking Attacks of Opportunity.

See? Combo is created.

Maneuver 1: Take an attack of opportunity on target monster as it enters a square you threaten.
Maneuver 2: Deal melee damage and push target monster back 10 feet.

Maneuver 1: Disarm target monster.
Maneuver 2: Push target monster back 5 feet and step forwards 5 feet as a free action.

See? None of these have to be complex. They're just ways that decent maneuvers can combine in ways that ensure that certain maneuvers often get relegated to later in the combat.

Its not as powerful an effect as some of the others I listed, but it does lift a little weight.

 

[jasin]

And it reintroduces a great deal of 'system mastery' into the system, a concept that spawned stuff like a certain 'toughness' feat. Bah. Spit.

Bo9S was great, because it gave us tactical variety, AND was simple enough that even an idiot could use it to make a buttkicking fighter.

It seems to me that there's plenty of system mastery required to use Bo9S to it's full extent (whether by design or not).

It takes very little play experience to master the fact that Toughness sucks things you're not allowed to say on EN World. Bo9S offers so many options that aren't directly comparable to each other that it's much harder to spot and apply the best combos.

Sudden Leap is cool. That stance that extends your reach is cool. Whirlwind Attack is cool. But how cool is it when you use all three together?

Similarly, ghost touch weapon + that Shadow Hand incorporeality maneuver + Diamond Mind make attacks at cumulative -4 until you miss maneuver.

Or crusaders, wielding vicious weapons, using Stone Power. Deal more damage, but in return you get damaged yourself (which lets you deal more damage), but it's just temp hp so it's okay!

I think these require a much higher degree of system mastery than avoiding Toughness.

 

[Imaro]

Another problem with combos is that, as the options grow in sourcebooks and new corebooks, the probability of "game breakers" rise. You now have to balance "powers" in relation to each other and how they can be combined with other per-day/at-will/per-encounter abilities. There's no way this approach can't eventually lead to the rules mastery disparity. I, as a DM, would rather not have to be aware of all these factors...plus how does one tell a player they can't have a certain ability of their class because it interacts with another characer's abilities in what is considered a game breaking way? Which character's ability should be taken away or nerfed?

Finally I can also see the problem of player's with more rules mastery dominating newer players by knowing the best combos. Instead of that player learning and deciding their own characters abilities and the application of said abilities...they will defer to the better combos of an experienced player. I would just rather avoid this type of setup from the get go than have to use the DM hammer.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I think these require a much higher degree of system mastery than avoiding Toughness.

Yes and no. The point is, that you don't need system mastery to be good. With the Bo9S, you have to do pretty bad stuff to play a truly bad character. And compare that to the core Fighter.

Bo9S characters need system mastery to be used to their full extent (that's probably true in ANY rules set, where significant rules interactions can happen), but you need much less to be effective.

You listed some stuff - and look: Every single instance of that stuff is useful on its own. The bonus you get from the combination is just extra gravy.

And that's something, that should be encouraged. Everything should be useful, but smart users get rewarded for figuring out something. But not overtly, nor should it be required - I'd say: Out of the box characters should be closer to the optimum than now, without increasing the optimum.

EDIT: And I remember asking mearls that about the ToB... I've dug out his post on the WotC boards:

Yes, I think I'd agree that I personally see Nine Swords as a success, and most (maybe all?) of the people in the department agree. We knew going in that there would be a chunk of gamers who would just write off the book. However, it seems like a lot of people understood what we were doing with the mechanics.

I was just talking about Nine Swords yesterday with someone at work, and he mentioned that he really liked how many of the abilities "scale" with system mastery. For instance, you can put zero thought into the crusader's delayed damage pool but still reap all its benefits. If you look for ways to improve/exploit that ability, your character is better, but the basic level buy-in yields a fun PC. I think that's a good place to aim.

The maneuvers are in a similar boat. It's hard to take maneuvers that yield a totally gimped character, but it's also a challenge to find all the potential combinations of powers. There's enough focus to the maneuvers (they're all attacks that do damage, with some extra stuff on top) that it's hard to build a warblade who simply can't hurt anything. OTOH, there's enough variety that you can play different types of warblades, or find combos of powers and feats that yield powerful builds.

And now you see, why I'm totally stoked about mearls in 4E! Or as hong would say: "I love him with all of my body, including my pee-pee."

Cheers, LT.

 

[hong]

Or as hong would say: "I love him with all of my body, including my pee-pee."

That's, like, so September, mang.

 

[Dragonblade]

That post by Mearls is great. That is exactly what I want. A system that lets the casual player not worry too much since its impossible to make a weak build. But also rewards the gamist player but providing the opportunity to make more powerful combos through rules mastery. But those combos still aren't so powerful that it unbalances the game or lessens the casual player's effectiveness.