Simplifying Distance

[Zaruthustran]

So the question is: What kind of issues do you foresee should the whole 5' shift and AoO's be removed from 4ed? Reduce the distance equations to descriptions of "Hand to Hand, Pretty Close, Not Too Far, Far, and Wicked Far Out There".

I like this in concept, but I don't think it'd work in practice.

For example, if a combat is between two people the vague distance category--or range--will always be the same for both combatants. They're either pretty close to each, or wicked far apart, or whatever. If one person changes the range, the range is newly established for both combatants. So no problem.

But what about a combat between two groups?

Now you need to know how far each person is from each other combatant--friend *and* foe. Bob Fighter could be hand to hand with Goblin With Sword, pretty close to Headless Zombie, and pretty close to Adam the Cleric... but Adam the Cleric could be wicked far from headless zombie, or he could be pretty close or even hand to hand with it. Relative range to every combatant would have to be tracked for each combatant. Big problem.

The best way to track all these interrelations is a battlemat.

You say you're concerned with the theatrical feel. So instead of tossing the map, I suggest you instead throw out the hard limits to movement rules. Be a little loose with the hard limit on movement rate and 5' steps. Maybe use action points to enable any kind of movement that meets the general approval of all the players at the game (including DM).

I do this in my Savage Tide campaign. Players can spend an action point to do any kind of "stunt". For example: dive from a cliff, leap a roaring bonfire, leap onto a sail and use a knife to slow one's descent, swing on a rope, whatever. From a mechanical point of view it's like an auto "take 30" on a tumble, clumb, swim, ride, balance or jump (or all of the above) check--but we don't actually do the math. Action points are essentially a "spend this to do something cool" card.

But we still use the battlemat to keep track of who is where.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, its the reason to play D&D minis, its the reason to play Battletech, its the reason to play Advanced Squad Leader, its the reason to play Terrible Swift Sword, or any other wargame out there. Saying that about D&D is a step backwards in the evolution of roleplaying games, from that fateful day when Dave Arneson ran his Napoleonic Wars game and no combat ever occurred because everyone was having fun roleplaying.

That's not true. My favorite part of the game has been the tactical combat since I started playing. That is also true about nearly every other person I've played with. I do come across about 10% or so of players who insist that the game is ALL about the roleplaying and that combat is a necessary evil. They spend most of their time complaining that there wasn't enough role playing or that their DM wasn't good enough.

All great stories are about conflict. Conflict is what makes them interesting. No one wants to roleplay going to a job, dealing with coworkers then going out for a drink after work. It's too mundane and not the reason anyone plays RPGs. Most conflict requires combat.

And combats are not very interesting if they are a forgone conclusion. There has to be tension and uncertainty. They need to have interesting actions to perform each round rather than mindlessly rolling attack rolls or using the one best possible tactic. So because of that people want tactics to be more complicated. They want to factor in the bonus they get from their position, the fact that their target is stunned, that their opponents are close enough together to hit with an area of effect spell, etc.

And WOTC is giving people what they want.

As for the rest of those games...D&D minis is fun to be able to periodically not think of the role playing reasons for things and just concentrate on the game part. Battletech is fun to play from time to time, but it too can be just as much role playing game by having stats for your character and a campaign storyline to tie the battles together along with role playing some time out of the mech.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's not true.

Actually, it's every bit as true as anything you've claimed. In both cases it's weakly-supported opinion. I think you're both wrong . Too much tactical combat in an RPG sends me into a stupor, as noted, if I wanted that I'd be playing a tactical wargame (and I often do), and too much roleplaying (without real conflict) bores me senseless. Both is what makes it great. Honestly, though, 3E had a little too much BORING tactical combat, esp. as it tended to cut down on the RP or doing anything clever. Hopefully 4E can make the tactical combat more interest and jive with the roleplaying a bit better.

You also might want to consider that most RPGs have only quasi-tactical or faux-tactical combat, yet are pretty popular (more than "10%" of the market overall). Conflict is fun, but it doesn't need to be terribly complex, or "tactical" to please most gamers. Conflict need not be fightin', either, as you seem to acknowledge.

 

[Counterspin]

No, its the reason to play D&D minis, its the reason to play Battletech, its the reason to play Advanced Squad Leader, its the reason to play Terrible Swift Sword, or any other wargame out there. Saying that about D&D is a step backwards in the evolution of roleplaying games, from that fateful day when Dave Arneson ran his Napoleonic Wars game and no combat ever occurred because everyone was having fun roleplaying.

I didn't say I don't roleplay, in fact about 80% of my current game is roleplay. However, if I weren't interested in tactics, I wouldn't bother with D&D. I can teach someone to play Unknown Armies in 5 minutes, have a better ruleset for mental degradation, and not have to agonize of builds or any such stuff.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Honestly, though, 3E had a little too much BORING tactical combat, esp. as it tended to cut down on the RP or doing anything clever. Hopefully 4E can make the tactical combat more interest and jive with the roleplaying a bit better.

I think you nailed it. 3E combat is pretty much either:

1. "I swing. I hit. 5 damage. Your turn."

-or-

2. "I swing. I miss. Your turn."

Rogues and casters have some other options or extra effects, but that's essentially it. The fighter options all require specific builds; no one ever attempts a sunder or disarm or whatever unless they've designed their entire character around that one attack, from class to feats to equipment. I mean, the game actively punishes you via an AoO by the target if you attempt a disarm with a non-optimized character "just for fun".

I hope 4E keeps tactical combat, but makes it more impactful and fun.

 

[Counterspin]

Definitely agree about the boring tactical combat thing. As I see tactical combat as the reason to play D&D over its competitors, and that portion of the rules certainly seems to be improving by bringing the options full casters have down, for balance, and the options available to martial characters up, to make combat more interesting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

mean, the game actively punishes you via an AoO by the target if you attempt a disarm with a non-optimized character "just for fun".

I hope 4E keeps tactical combat, but makes it more impactful and fun.

Yep, exactly, that's one of the things I've always thought was crazy, from like, when I first saw the 3E PHB. Though it wasn't until now I thought "I could just change that". Hmph. Anyway, yeah, more options, and better options without build-specialization would be nice.

 

[bgaesop]

It's already been confirmed that five foots steps and AoO are still in. They're called shifts and opportunity attacks respectively, that seems to be the only difference.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Reduce the distance equations to descriptions of "Hand to Hand, Pretty Close, Not Too Far, Far, and Wicked Far Out There".

I like this, bit it's really hard, in practice. I've tried to come up with a system to handle it elegantly. You have to track the distance between every pair of characters/monsters on the battlefield. Easy to do when there's 3 of you, but when you get past 6, forget about it.

 

[Cadfan]

You know, I'd be really interested in seeing RPG rules for distances like that. I don't think I'd want to play that way, but it would be interesting to see.