Rule of Three: 7/11

[DEFCON 1]

Complexity /= "easier" for me.

Complexity in understanding a rule is different than the complexity in accomplishing the rule in the game once you understand it.

 

[Lalato]

OK... but what's wrong with defensively moving toward the Wizard? There's nothing in the rules against that. I don't understand what you're getting at here. The Ogre can always choose to disengage from the Fighter and end up nearer the Wizard. The only penalty in early editions was that he wouldn't be taking an attack on the Fighter... and there are no Opportunity Attacks to encourage him to stay with the Fighter.

Maybe the Ogre just has a thing against Wizards?

 

[MrMyth]

Except... when you are engaged in melee, you can't just run past someone. The only movement actions you can take are "Defensive Movement" such as a Fighting Withdrawal or Retreat. A Fighter needs only engage the Ogre and the Ogre must deal with the Fighter, or figure out some way to disengage.

Therefore, your example is false, and not by the rules. If Rich Baker is talking about the Ogre just "running past the fighter" or whatever, then clearly he doesn't know the rules.

Adding in two complex powers that don't do anything better than the basic rule of being engaged in melee and fighting withdrawal movements is not my idea of "easier".

Combine this with the fact that every defender in 4E has their own rules for acting as the tank means that the effects of complexity are cumulative... For each defender you add (with their own version "Combat Superiority" and "Combat Challenge") means that the system as a whole gets more and more complex.

Complexity /= "easier" for me.

Ok, look, I think it is absolutely true that the complexity level of those powers is an issue, certainly. I don't think that ties into the specific situation being discussed, however. Those abilities do make it easier for the fighter to fulfill their role, even if, in your opinion, they make it more complicated to actually play.

The concerns about complexity are legitimate ones. But claiming that those two rules "don't do anything better than the basic rule of being engaged in melee and fighting withdrawal movements" is just flat-out 100% incorrect. There is a huge difference between "monster walks away from fighter and takes some damage" vs "monster tries to walk away from fighter and can't."

Or what about fragile melee PCs? If a monster is flanked by a fighter and a rogue, in 4E, if it turns around and tries to smash the rogue, the fighter can dish out some damage and penalize its attack roll. As opposed to... being able to do nothing about it other than watch the rogue get pulped.

These scenarios are not ones that Rich Baker has invented to justify his reasoning - they are ones I've seen firsthand countless times. You could very easily end up with very tough characters who many monsters would just ignore. Whether that means walking away from them and getting hit by an Opportunity Attack, or having the ability to knock the fighter away and then go for the wizard, or having reach, or whatever.

Now, I admit - these scenarios are drawn primarily on my experience with 3rd Edition. But do the rules for earlier editions really prevent a monster from walking up to a wizard and threatening it? Or choosing to ignore the fighter and smash the thief or the cleric who is also engaged with it in melee? Do those editions really offer any tools to the fighters themselves to allow them to discourage enemies from attacking their allies?

Yes, there are many monsters for who this wouldn't be an issue. Maybe the ogre is dumb enough that the fighter can yell at him and keep his attention. Maybe a monster is slow and can't get to the wizard. But many other monsters will fight tactically, and quite often the smart move is to ignore the meat shield and go get the healer and others.

4E actively gives the fighter tools to accomplish that. You might feel those tools present other issues in terms of complexity; that's an absolutely legitimate way to feel. But claiming those tools don't accomplish anything at all? Either shows inexperience with seeing such abilities in action, or a willful desire to ignore what they can do simply because it doesn't match the point you are trying to make.

 

[P1NBACK]

OK... but what's wrong with defensively moving toward the Wizard? There's nothing in the rules against that. I don't understand what you're getting at here. The Ogre can always choose to disengage from the Fighter and end up nearer the Wizard. The only penalty in early editions was that he wouldn't be taking an attack on the Fighter... and there are no Opportunity Attacks to encourage him to stay with the Fighter.

Maybe the Ogre just has a thing against Wizards?

Wait... Your question is, "What's wrong with defensively advancing toward the enemy?"

Your restating of the rule is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. No. The Ogre can't just "disengage". He has TWO options:

Movement in combat is handled per round, as explained before. However, only the following special forms of movement are possible once opponents are engaged in melee...

Fighting Withdrawal: A fighting withdrawal may be used in combat if the defender wishes to back up slowly. Movement backwards is limited to 1/2 the normal movement rate per round...

Retreat: Any movement backwards at more than 1/2 the normal movement rate is a retreat. If a creature tries to retreat, the opponent may add a +2 to all "to hit" rolls, and the defender is not allowed to make a return attack...

ETA: Therefore, once a Fighter engages an enemy, the only option that enemy has it to take out the Fighter or move backwards.

It's astounding how much people think they know about older editions of D&D on this forum. And, then make statements about how much better newer editions are...

 

[keterys]

Eh, I'll admit I only played 1E and 2E for like ten years with a few different groups (and we all know how rules varied from table to table back then), but I don't think I ever saw a table where you couldn't switch off from the fighter to the wizard pretty trivially.

Interestingly, I believe the old SSI games which in theory used 1E rules, had opportunity attacks (in effect, not name) for moving past enemies. At least some of them. I think one also stopped your movement when you got to melee, but once you were in melee you could then move to a different spot in a different round.

Either way, you always went for the casters first and ignored the fighters. I remember fights like:
6 level 9 fighters
2 level 4 wizards

and oh god, you had to get those wizards down ASAP before they used a spell that was actually dangerous, fighters, meh, whatever. Just an investment of time.

 

[Balesir]

OK, but what does "backwards" mean? This is typical AD&D language (been re-reading it for nostalgia and ideas); it makes perfect sense in a dungeon corridor or (at a pinch) in a room, but otherwise gets muddled and confusing. In a genuine "melee" (translation - "mixed together") there is no "backwards" - there are enemies (and friends) all around you. Getting those rules to mean "I can engage the wizard from here" was always trivial - even if you had to imagine walking backwards (for some bizarre reason) to do it.

The end result, as usual, was houserules. Or switching to DragonQuest, C&S or Runequest (which is what we did).

Even without that, what if the thief was behind the ogre (which he would have to be to get a "backstab" - so the ogre pummels the thief. Or a party member is down and an adjacent monster intends to slit their throat - not a damned thing a(nother) fighter can do about it.

There is no doubt in my mind that 4E Fighters can do what D&D has always expected them to do (defend other party members) far more effectively, tactically and, for some, enjoyably than in any past edition. That's not to say past editions didn't have strengths - they did - just that this was never one of them.

 

[P1NBACK]

OK, but what does "backwards" mean?

I think it's pretty simple. Away from where the Fighter is standing in front of you... How is this confusing?

W ....... F x O --------------> This way is backward.

Even without that, what if the thief was behind the ogre (which he would have to be to get a "backstab" - so the ogre pummels the thief. Or a party member is down and an adjacent monster intends to slit their throat - not a damned thing a(nother) fighter can do about it.

This still occurs in 4E...

These are called risks and rewards. Tactics. If the Thief wants to get in on his backstab, by sneaking up behind the Ogre (and therefore blocking the ogre's retreat) then he's risking being hit. The same thing happens in 4E, except there's an added layer of complexity "I risk being hit, but the Ogre gets -2 to his attacks..."

There is no doubt in my mind that 4E Fighters can do what D&D has always expected them to do (defend other party members) far more effectively, tactically and, for some, enjoyably than in any past edition. That's not to say past editions didn't have strengths - they did - just that this was never one of them.

Wait. I thought this was about it being "easy" and "less complex"?

'Better' is a subjective term. Let's leave it to something we can measure. I think easy and complexity is pretty clearly on the side of the older editions, especially Basic D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One issue is missed with the effectiveness of fighters in editions before 4th. There was a piece of kit that made or broke the fighter's ability to do his job effectively and it's not a power or class feature or on his equipment list. It's the 5' or 10' wide corridor. A second commonly missing issue is hirelings.

In a dungeon it takes one fighter to block a 5' corridor and protect the wizard. With half a dozen hirelings you can probably protect a wizard in a room. AD&D 1e was written about dungeoneering adventurers - and expected the party to go in with a pack of hirelings. On the other hand, if we look even at the dragonlance saga dungeons are much rarer - as are hirelings. AD&D 2e barely changed the rules (no, THAC0 wasn't a fundamental change). But what it changed was the tone. 2e is much more high fantasy than 1e - and this effectively stripped fighters of the tools they needed (walls, choke points) and support (hirelings). But it did it without doing this explicitely, so groups that were used to 1e generally kept playing the same metagame they had been even if they switched rulesets. 3e tried to keep the metagame of 2e (and late 2e at that). And the mages were massively powered up.

4e on the other hand gives fighters the tools they need in a high fantasy almost dungeonless metagame to do what 1e fighters could do with the aid of dungeon walls and hirelings. And although the disappearance of these two tools of the fighters' trade isn't strictly tied to any edition it's correlated strongly with some more than others.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm not as into the details of the rules as the rest of you....I kind of wing it anyway....but I agree with the comment that the answer to question 3 is important to me.

I feel a loss of iconic powers and magic. I feel a loss of the what makes each class/race/whatever unique. I'm not sure what the exact fix is to that loss....but the fact that WotC is talking about it is encoraging to me. YMMV on that, of course.

 

[FireLance]

Your restating of the rule is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. No. The Ogre can't just "disengage". He has TWO options:

...

ETA: Therefore, once a Fighter engages an enemy, the only option that enemy has it to take out the Fighter or move backwards.

It might be rules-legal, but it's not to my taste. The fact that the ogre cannot even choose to move past the fighter seems unrealistic. In this respect, I find the 4E approach to be far more reasonable.