Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you foresee reasons why this won't work?

The Rule of Unintended Consequences?!

My main concern would be the aforementioned powers & items thing. 2 surges would greatly neuter healing magic powers & items. It seems as if a third to a half of the powers classes like the WarPriest, Warlord, Cleric, Ardent, etc. have include some kind of effect that interacts with Healing Surges (and some items flat out require them to be useful).

Minimizing the number of surges like that, then, amounts to a nerfing that could drive players away from those powers and/or even worse, those classes.

Secondarily, there are certain powers that monsters have that assume you have the standard amount of surges available, and some classes are built with this in mind. I know that some low-level encounters in 4Ed were very tough for our party because the NPCs had synergistic abilities that made them hard to defeat quickly. A few bad rolls, and our Fighter (a Defender class) was dipping into his surges. Then again. Then again. Most of the rest of the party is still shiny and new; he looks like he went through a car crusher. But as a Defender, that's his job.

If he didn't have the HSes to burn, with or without the aid of other PC's abilities, he'd have been toast. And my Warlock would be on the front lines...again...and sooner than normal.

 

[pemerton]

Something I haven't seen discussed is that when compared to 0e-3e, 4e encourages a less adversarial mindset between players and GMs.

<snip>

IME in actual play 4e players don't complain about GMs going 'outside the rules' - because they trust that doing so will create an engaging story, and is not being done in adversarial fashion.
In this sense, 4e feels empowering for both GMs (who can do what they like) and for players

Well, you and I have discussed this! - for instance, using p 42 to set ad hoc damage as consequences for a failed improvisational check.

For me, this is one of the telling signs of indie design influence on 4e. Of course, many of the features that support it - heaing surges, scaling DCs, damage-by-level, etc, are quite unpopular.

it also means that 4e is a different and (I think) narrower game than pre-4e D&D; it is not designed for the Gamism-built-on-Simulation style which I think was common to at least 1e through 3e

<snip>

It's also not very tweakable to other styles, eg the way 2e used 1e rules for a more dramatist/story style.

I don't think that 2e was very successful using the 1e rules for a more story style.

I'm with Hussar on this one - I don't think 2nd ed AD&D was very flexible at all - the "dramatist" style of 2nd ed seems to consist mostly in the GM fudging/railroading around the mechanics to make things come out the "right" way.

it's not disempowering if it's run the way it's designed, but it's not designed to run like traditional D&D.

"Traditional D&D" covers a very wide range of styles, I think. For instance, I think 4e does a better job of the sort of game the 1986 Oriental Adventures seemed to be aimed at than does that system itself.

I think one thing where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is right about "transparency" is that applying the sort of fiat/fudging/railroading to 4e as 2nd ed seems to rely upon will be very obvious - far more obvious than in 2nd ed, where the systems are quite opaque even without fiat/fudging. Which might make it seem less flexible.

A common advice for a long time was: "Make it up".

One can definably run say 3e the same way as he used to run 2e - using fiat when he cannot remember or dislike the RAW. "DM:How did grapple work again? You know what, just give me a STR check and we go from there."

And there is one edition of D&D that I know of that builds the whole system around these easily-improvised resolution methods, and that has a section headed "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" - 4e, and page 42.

So I don't know where the idea comes from that 4e can't be played this way. (Actually, one of the more frequent criticisms of 4e is that it resolves grapple as a STR check.)

 

[Hussar]

The Rule of Unintended Consequences?!

My main concern would be the aforementioned powers & items thing. 2 surges would greatly neuter healing magic powers & items. It seems as if a third to a half of the powers classes like the WarPriest, Warlord, Cleric, Ardent, etc. have include some kind of effect that interacts with Healing Surges (and some items flat out require them to be useful).

Minimizing the number of surges like that, then, amounts to a nerfing that could drive players away from those powers and/or even worse, those classes.

Secondarily, there are certain powers that monsters have that assume you have the standard amount of surges available, and some classes are built with this in mind. I know that some low-level encounters in 4Ed were very tough for our party because the NPCs had synergistic abilities that made them hard to defeat quickly. A few bad rolls, and our Fighter (a Defender class) was dipping into his surges. Then again. Then again. Most of the rest of the party is still shiny and new; he looks like he went through a car crusher. But as a Defender, that's his job.

If he didn't have the HSes to burn, with or without the aid of other PC's abilities, he'd have been toast. And my Warlock would be on the front lines...again...and sooner than normal.

How is the fighter example any different than any other edition. The same thing happened before. The fighter stepped up, maybe with the cleric, they lost the most hit points, while the rogue and the wizard came out of the encounter with nary a scratch.

Asymmetrical HP loss is the result of bad tactics and/or bad luck, not a system thing.

As far as items go, in the PHB, the only item that keys off of surges that I can think of off the top of my head is healing potions. And, note, he's not reducing the number of surges a character has, just how fast they recharge. Class powers, with a couple of exceptions, only key off of surges when they heal. Again, there are exceptions, but, they are just that. Exceptions, not the rule.

And, what's wrong with driving players away from classes that use mechanics that you don't like in the game anyway? If you hate non-magical healing, for example, why not drive players away from the warlord?

 

[pemerton]

I built a CON-based Elementalist Sorcerer so a friend who was visiting could have any easy PC to play when he dropped in for a single session. It exhibited the same oddity as [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] has noticed with respect to his Warlock - many more surges than a pure caster seems to need!

The build challenge is then to find a way to make such a PC at least a semi-viable front-line fighter via close attacks, reasonable defences and a bit of condition mitigation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How is the fighter example any different than any other edition.

1) Again, a melee striker should not have fewer HP than a ranged striker. A melee striker without HP gets in trouble quickly and can't get out of it once he takes a couple of solid shots. On a ranged striker, having a massive HP total is kind of like a billionaire winning the state lottery.

2) In a party with a Fighter, a WarPriest, a Ranger* and a Rogue, among others, it is illogical that the Warlock- basically a non-melee class by design- should have the second most HP in the party. And not by a little bit, either. In prior editions, all of those would be either much higher or at least equal to the Warlock (or similar caster, like a post-1Ed Bard). If someone got past the foursome mentioned above, the casters couldn't take too many hits.

But in 4Ed, there is my Warlock, stepping up to keep the (untouched) Ranger from being bitch-slapped by ogres. THAT simply doesn't happen in prior editions. Its a complete overturning of D&D's historical playstyle.

Asymmetrical HP loss is the result of bad tactics and/or bad luck, not a system thing.

Its not the asymmentrical HP loss in and of itself that differs, it is the post loss consequences.

In prior editions, the Fighter catches some bad luck, then the Cleric and Ranger (just using the classes mentioned, for convenience) step up because they have the better armor, melee weapons & HP than the Rogue & arcane casters.

In my example, the Warlock has double-digit more HP than anyone else except the Fighter. The WarPriest is also on the front line, alongside the Fighter, so that isn't changed too much.

But instead of the Ranger stepping up next, it is the Warlock who must fill in the breach. The Ranger can't go toe to toe with things like ogres, etc., because he can't take hits. So even though the Ranger has better melee weapons at his disposal, it is the ill-equipped (in terms of weapons) Warlock who has to interpose himself between friend & foe. And his powers & abilities do not lend themselves to that role. Suddenly, he goes from a ranged combatant to recon with, to a guy swinging a hammer with his MBA...just so the squishy Ranger can do his thing.

Simply put: an unwounded warrior shouldn't be hiding behind spellcasters.



* there are actually two Rangers, but we almost never have both players show the same session.

 

[pemerton]

The Ranger can't go toe to toe with things like ogres, etc., because he can't take hits. So even though the Ranger has better melee weapons at his disposal, it is the ill-equipped (in terms of weapons) Warlock who has to interpose himself between friend & foe. And his powers & abilities do not lend themselves to that role. Suddenly, he goes from a ranged combatant to recon with, to a guy swinging a hammer with his MBA...just so the squishy Ranger can do his thing.

Your warlock needs more close attacks! Or items to shift those surges onto the ranger.

I agree that it produces some counterintuitive dynamics into the game. I'm not at all sure what they were thinking of when they went for CON warlocks and sorcerers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can understand Con casters in the sense of "the channeling of arcane energies" in such-and-such a way is physically demanding, but coupled with the HP the class gets anyway, plus racial benefits, etc...

As for close attacks, I'm struggling with that a bit. I'm probably going to train his Eldritch Blast into Eldritch Strike, but he's a bit feat starved* for me to make him exactly how I envisioned him in the beginning. I'd like him to be able to do more with his Psion multiclass side- a big source of his feat starvation**- and Dwarven weapon training and Bludgeon expertise would be very nice...










* FWIW, I'm in favor of PCs being feat starved.

** but not a fan of the way multiclassing eats feats

 

[billd91]

"Traditional D&D" covers a very wide range of styles, I think. For instance, I think 4e does a better job of the sort of game the 1986 Oriental Adventures seemed to be aimed at than does that system itself.

On that, I would disagree. I think 4e would handle the Chinese chop socky action movies like Invincible Shaolin. But I don't think it does the swift brutality of the samurai story nearly as well as 1e does.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The Rule of Unintended Consequences?!

My main concern would be the aforementioned powers & items thing. 2 surges would greatly neuter healing magic powers & items. It seems as if a third to a half of the powers classes like the WarPriest, Warlord, Cleric, Ardent, etc. have include some kind of effect that interacts with Healing Surges (and some items flat out require them to be useful).

Minimizing the number of surges like that, then, amounts to a nerfing that could drive players away from those powers and/or even worse, those classes.

Secondarily, there are certain powers that monsters have that assume you have the standard amount of surges available, and some classes are built with this in mind. I know that some low-level encounters in 4Ed were very tough for our party because the NPCs had synergistic abilities that made them hard to defeat quickly. A few bad rolls, and our Fighter (a Defender class) was dipping into his surges. Then again. Then again. Most of the rest of the party is still shiny and new; he looks like he went through a car crusher. But as a Defender, that's his job.

If he didn't have the HSes to burn, with or without the aid of other PC's abilities, he'd have been toast. And my Warlock would be on the front lines...again...and sooner than normal.

So you don't like the fact that PCs get so many HPs through Healing surges yet you understand the fact they're expected to have them because they'll be expected to need them all? I feel like it's complaining that a car having a 50 gallon gas tank is too much yet still wanting to drive 2,000 miles without stopping for gas.

You could simply remove all Healing Surges, and state that any power requiring Healing Surges simply doesn't anymore. They still recover HP according to the Healing Surge Value. You'll then need to change healing encounter powers to 1 per day with an additional use gained every six levels. Will that be closer to your liking?

 

[S'mon]

The Rule of Unintended Consequences?!

My main concern would be the aforementioned powers & items thing. 2 surges would greatly neuter healing magic powers & items. It seems as if a third to a half of the powers classes like the WarPriest, Warlord, Cleric, Ardent, etc. have include some kind of effect that interacts with Healing Surges (and some items flat out require them to be useful).

Minimizing the number of surges like that, then, amounts to a nerfing that could drive players away from those powers and/or even worse, those classes.

Secondarily, there are certain powers that monsters have that assume you have the standard amount of surges available, and some classes are built with this in mind. I know that some low-level encounters in 4Ed were very tough for our party because the NPCs had synergistic abilities that made them hard to defeat quickly. A few bad rolls, and our Fighter (a Defender class) was dipping into his surges. Then again. Then again. Most of the rest of the party is still shiny and new; he looks like he went through a car crusher. But as a Defender, that's his job.

If he didn't have the HSes to burn, with or without the aid of other PC's abilities, he'd have been toast. And my Warlock would be on the front lines...again...and sooner than normal.

Thanks - I can see that. But if the system assumes ca 4 fights between extended rests, wouldn't a smaller number of fights between rests keep effective surge availability exactly the same?
IME what actually happens IMCs is that there is usually 1 fight between rests, sometimes 2, rarely 3, and surge availability in practice is not the resource issue the game apparently intended. So eg surge drain attacks are not seen as a real threat, because PCs are not slogging through four battles a day. (Also, PCs at Paragon Tier IME fight only 4-5 battles each level, not the 8-9 assumed by the game, but each fight takes 2-3 hours!)

Edit: It's definitely also my experience that the Defender, if doing his job, is burning through lots of Surges. And there's also the risk that other players are lazy and don't support the Defender, so they don't use their own surges. What should be happening IMO is that the Defender takes a large chunk of the aggro, but other PCs like CON Warlocks certainly should be attracting a decent amount away from him. Letting the Defender bear the entire brunt is quite dysfunctional play IMO, except in a very small group.