D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[The Crimson Binome]

Other attacks are situational.

Situational is synonymous with usually irrelevant. Look at the Ranger, in 3E. Being useful in a sub-set of circumstances is just not that important. (It didn't help that the rules on page 42 placed such restrictive limits on environmental effects that they often weren't worth engaging with.)

Contrast to the fighting styles that increase your accuracy, damage, or AC. These are relevant in every round of every combat ever.

 

[Lanefan]

Which is why pushing only normally took the place of a couple of points of damage - or at the outside an extra target in melee which is no use at all when you're only next to one enemy.

My only question about all this pushing and sliding etc. is how often did the opposition get to do it to the PCs? How many PCs did you-as-DM ever push or slide off a cliff or in to the pool of acid?

You do not need a huge set piece fight even if many DMs enjoy them and enjoy that 4e makes them shine. But a fight round a camp fire is not a huge setpiece so much as an improvised wandering monster check.

I think 4e module design would beg to differ: most of the combat-intended encounters in the 4e modules I've converted quite clearly fall into the "set piece" category, on different scales.

Which makes sense, as set pieces are something 4e did well.

 

[Lanefan]

My entire point here is exactly that people like choices that matter, meaning numbers, actual probabilities, and I came here to discuss why it might be that Paizo didn't learn this lesson from the fate of 4E.

Some people like those things, and see character build being as important (or more important!) than character play.

Others don't, and aren't interested in having to choose between optimization and characterization (a serious issue with 3e-like systems).

Maybe Paizo listened to the latter group.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ugh. I've just looked into Pathfinder 2e feats and skills, but only scratching the surface. I decided to start with Intimidate because it's very easy to mess a skill like that up, and it's car-crash bad.

There are two basic uses of Intimidate - Coerce and Demoralize, and they both have the Auditory, Concentrate, Emotion, and Mental tags (and both can be used untrained) - and Coerce has Exploration (i.e. it takes time) and Linguistic. Both Emotion and Mental are fair enough (you can't intimidate something without a mind).

But the others?

• Concentrate? "An action with this trait requires a degree of mental concentration and discipline." So if someone has a hangover and a toothache they might not be able to concentrate enough to coerce?
• Auditory? "... An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds." So the fighter can't flick blood off his blade and glare after a particularly brutal kill to attempt to demoralise? And somehow you must be able to speak but they don't have to hear you if you want to demoralise someone? Now this is looking like a spell to me - you need the magic words but they don't have to hear them.
• Linguistic? (Coercion only) "An effect with this trait depends on language comprehension. A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target understands the language you are using." So you're telling me that (without a feat) I need to share a language to make the kobolds I've let live start digging? Handing them a pick, pointing at the seam of ore, and putting my hand threateningly on my sword won't get the point across?

And Demoralize is pretty terrible as a use of an action too - it inflicts Frightened 1 - which gives the target -1 to all checks and DCs for one round. Even Bull Rush is generally better.

And then I looked up the first level feats for Intimidate. Remember these are all optional abilities to add to the skill that cost resources:

• Group Coercion (L1) - may coerce more than one target when coercing (how many depends on your level of training). If I'm a Master Intimidator how do I also need to spend a feat to do this?
• Intimidating Glare (L1) - may glare to demoralize people. If you do replace the auditory tag with the visual one and you don't get penalties for not sharing a language. Um what? If I'm skilled at intimidation I need to spend an actual feat to be able to intimidate someone with my attitude?
• Quick Coercion (L1) - you can coerce in a round instead of a minute but not in combat. That's a pretty weak feat - but I can see it as going above and beyond something the skill should do for you.
• Intimidating Prowess (L2) - Requires STR 16 and gives +1 to intimidate checks or +2 if you have a STR of 20+. Also you don't need to share a language to demoralize. Well that's weak-sauce.
• Lasting Coercion (L2) - Coerce has for some arbitrary reason a hard-coded cap of one day for how long it works. This feat (and not skill) raises it to one week, or a month if your skill is legendary although provides no extra bonus.

That's three feats that should just be folded in with intimidation skill (group coercion, intimidating glare, and lasting coercion), one that's a flat +1 if you are strong or +2 if you are very strong rather than e.g. using your strength rather than charisma modifier to intimidate people.

It's also five feats you can spend on Intimidation and that don't work for anything but Intimidation by level 2.

Ok, this is an actual problem of design. I can see some of the simulationist logic, like how being scary visually is harder than being loud, so it takes a feat. But, I agree, it seems to be designed to limit what a player can do instead of designed to let them do cool things.

I probably would consolidate a lot of these into a few feats instead of keeping the full list.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Personally, I think DMs fret about this kind of thing too much. In my opinion, what Feats like this do is give you a codified way to accomplish the thing. That shouldn’t prevent other characters from accomplishing the thing through non-codified means. The Feat allows the player to say “I use this Feat. Here’s what happens.” Players who don’t have the Feat have to describe what they’re trying to accomplish and how and rely on the DM’s adjudication. That’s my view, anyway, though I know a lot of DMs who are not so comfortable with that.

That depends how the feat is written. Let’s use an example from 5e for illustrative purposes: the Subtle metamagic.
A Sorcerer with this metamagic can simply say “I’m spending 1 SP, no one can see or hear me cast.” Makes sense. If a Bard or Wizard wants to have the same effect, the DM can disallow it, require a Stealth roll with disadvantage against the hearer’s passive Perception, or straight Stealth roll against the hearer’s passive Perception. Subtle is better, but other characters can try to duplicate the effect.
In P2e, the equivalent is a Wizard exclusive and requires two feats: Conceal Spell and Silent Spell. Except, even with Silent Spell, the Wizard still has to make a Stealth check against the target’s Perception.
So, how do you adjudicate it if the Bard or the Arcane Rogue want to duplicate the effect? The Wizard spent 2 feats and invested in the Stealth skill to cast silently. Allowing the Bard or the Arcane Rogue to just roll Stealth is unfair: without investing any feats, each is more likely to succeed than the Wizard, since they are more likely to have high Dex and Stealth.
You can still balance this, but doing so is non-obvious.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Situational is synonymous with usually irrelevant. Look at the Ranger, in 3E. Being useful in a sub-set of circumstances is just not that important. (It didn't help that the rules on page 42 placed such restrictive limits on environmental effects that they often weren't worth engaging with.)

Contrast to the fighting styles that increase your accuracy, damage, or AC. These are relevant in every round of every combat ever.

Congratulations. You just described a tank's main gun firing armour piercing ammunition as irrelevant. Because there are very few guns out there. Indeed most of what a tank is going to do is maneuver - actually getting into combat is a rare situation.

The 3e ranger is not bad because it is situationally good. It is bad because (a) linear fighter quadratic wizard and (b) its baseline is just not that good. Despite this the Ranger is generally considered to be Tier 4 while the Fighter and Monk are considered Tier 5.

Situational is normally useful when it's stacked on a solid baseline. Tide of Iron works despite being situational for two reasons:

1. For an At Will attack 1W + Str is solid even when the push isn't useful. It's not razor-optimised but it's pretty good. With sword and shield it's about 0.6 DPR (or about 10% at level 1 and less at higher levels) behind Reaping Strike and very slightly more behind Shield Feint. But it's near enough to get the job done even when its bonus is not especially useful.
2. Even if your abilities are situational you have enough situational abilities and the situations are broad enough that you have wide-scale coverage.

 

[Lanefan]

The game that meticulously shuts down any avenue to gain that extra +1 or +2 bonus is pretty obviously and pretty clearly 5e. Unless you are handing out magic swords, a +1 or +2 bonus is outside the design space of DMing in 5e - it's Advantage or nothing. There isn't even an advantage to be gained from flanking a foe (except by an optional rule where it's full Advantage, thus exhausting the entire GM suggested toolbox). Now that's controlling.

Yes, that's a flaw with 5e: dis/advantage is overused.

I'd rather see both in use: flat + bonuses or - penalties where they make sense, and advantage/disadvantage where it makes sense...or even a combination (yeah, you're hooped on this one: you're at disadvantage AND at -2...good luck!).

The basic fact is that a +2 sword has never been interesting

Every character I've ever played in my life would beg to differ!

A +2 sword is ALWAYS interesting! If I'm a class that can use it, it becomes either my primary weapon or a solid backup, depending what else I have; and if I'm not of a class that can use it the 3000-4000 g.p. I can sell it for looks mighty good from here!

Welcome to D&D 3.X. It is this that 4e emphatically turned its back on - a 4e DM does not need to know what any feat does or the rules for any spell. That's all player side.

Even though it's player-side the DM still needs to know it, if only to prevent abuse or cheating.

Pathfinder 1 was a game that asked you to care about literally hundreds (almost 1500 not counting third party material) of little niggly feats. And it was that because 3.5 was a game that asked you to care about literally hundreds (just over 1500 in all) of little niggly feats. Your critique here is literally "Pathfinder 2 is following in the footsteps of Pathfinder 1".

4e meanwhile was a game which had hundreds of feats (it ended up with just over 1500 in all as well), some of which were little and niggly (and no one ever took because of it) but the only feats it ever asked you to care about were those that helped you build your character the way you wanted; if it wasn't on your character sheet it wasn't relevant.

Missing something here.

How can you complain one system with 1500 feats is a problem and then turn around and say another system with 1500 feats isn't? It's still 1500 bloody feats the player has to sort through!

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the feats that do not cost an action fall into one of two categories:

• a +1 that doesn’t stack with other feats in an extremely restricted circumstance (look at me! I’m an expert climber, I get a +1 to Athletics checks to climb only);
• an option that a lot of DMs probably would have allowed anyway that is now gated behind a feat (invisible enemy? I stab him with a dagger and let go of the dagger to track him. Do you have the high level fighter exclusive feat to do this? No? Too bad).

Thank you.

(cont'd)

 

[Charlaquin]

That depends how the feat is written. Let’s use an example from 5e for illustrative purposes: the Subtle metamagic.
A Sorcerer with this metamagic can simply say “I’m spending 1 SP, no one can see or hear me cast.” Makes sense. If a Bard or Wizard wants to have the same effect, the DM can disallow it, require a Stealth roll with disadvantage against the hearer’s passive Perception, or straight Stealth roll against the hearer’s passive Perception. Subtle is better, but other characters can try to duplicate the effect.
In P2e, the equivalent is a Wizard exclusive and requires two feats: Conceal Spell and Silent Spell. Except, even with Silent Spell, the Wizard still has to make a Stealth check against the target’s Perception.
So, how do you adjudicate it if the Bard or the Arcane Rogue want to duplicate the effect? The Wizard spent 2 feats and invested in the Stealth skill to cast silently. Allowing the Bard or the Arcane Rogue to just roll Stealth is unfair: without investing any feats, each is more likely to succeed than the Wizard, since they are more likely to have high Dex and Stealth.
You can still balance this, but doing so is non-obvious.

Yeah, it’s a complex topic for sure.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, I think DMs fret about this kind of thing too much. In my opinion, what Feats like this do is give you a codified way to accomplish the thing. That shouldn’t prevent other characters from accomplishing the thing through non-codified means. The Feat allows the player to say “I use this Feat. Here’s what happens.” Players who don’t have the Feat have to describe what they’re trying to accomplish and how and rely on the DM’s adjudication.

That's the 1e-2e-[sort-of-5e] approach: you can try anything the rules don't specifically disallow.

But both 3e and 4e very much came across as the opposite: you can't try anything unless the rules allow it.

It's a huge difference in philosophy, and that 5e backed away from it is hugely refreshing.