Well, for starters this is my problem with 4e martial powers: the spamming of powers. One has specific powers that can spam (be it at will) or activate (be it encounter or daily) in exactly the same fashion in periodic intervals of his choice. In fact my problem is not that an encounter or daily stunt cannot be repeated at will but exactly the opposite: that one can freely decide when to spam specific powers or activate them. This is the core foundation of the 4e combat but to me it is totaly out of reality.
So What is a Roleplaying Game? Forked Thread: Clark Peterson on 4E
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Well, for starters this is my problem with 4e martial powers: the spamming of powers. One has specific powers that can spam (be it at will) or activate (be it encounter or daily) in exactly the same fashion in periodic intervals of his choice. In fact my problem is not that an encounter or daily stunt cannot be repeated at will but exactly the opposite: that one can freely decide when to spam specific powers or activate them. This is the core foundation of the 4e combat but to me it is totaly out of reality.
Remathilis
Legend
The only difference I see is that most "at-wills" don't rely on a lot of flash-bang to be useful. In fact, 90% of the time they have very little if no impact beyond a basic attack anyway.
For example, the four fighter at-wills are Tide of Iron (basic + 1 sq pushback), Sure Strike (+2 to hit, no bonus to damage), Cleave (basic + extra if you have an enemy near you) and Reaping Strike (bonus damage on a miss, otherwise its a basic).
With possibly Tide of Iron, I don't see any of those being particularly game-changing to use over and over. They represent strategies to attack (such as forms in fencing) moreso than actual maneuvers. One could almost envision the fighter saying "I'm having a hard time hitting him, should I improve my chances at a decisive blow (Sure Strike) or just go with a guaranteed small amount of damage (Reaping Strike)?"
Whereas most martial encounter powers DO represent those attacks foes usually fall for once (and only once). Striking two foes, guarding an allies retreat, knocking them prone, or slowing them represent the effects of specific maneuvers, and ones that foes rarely fall for again once they witness them in action. I think this is a better system than the spamming of combat options (famously in 3e, but I saw more than few called shots in 2e).
Dailies are a completely different kettle of worms. I've usually used the argument that dailies are techniques that are so difficult to master, they rarely come up in battle. They are also slightly taxing to use and require some element of "mindset" as well as proper training, luck, and timing (in short, being in the right mind at the right place at the right time). If most combat days are 4-5 encounters (personal estimate), that means they aren't necessarily rare, but not so common as the situations that encounter powers need to work.
I know such an explanation doesn't work for everyone. It allows me the ability to narrative justify it.
I like your take. But it still seems artificial to me in game. I would like to see a system that calculates circumstancial conditions from luck and choice of options that both clearly are based on the respective combat styles of the partecipants-by styles I mostly mean here stuff like equipment and body structure (ie fast guy, heavy-big guy);not esoteric disciplines.
My problem is that the player can activate these specific encounter tricks whenever he wishes and they are exactly the same no-matter what. Perhaps one could make a system with tactics conditions and rolls and see if he can gain special tactical effects against his enemies. With each tactical success the enemies get to know you better and they improve their own respective tactics rolling-albeit if you have allready gained a tactical advantage.
Well use of this narrative does not justify them to me. It lacks believability regarding my expectations of how combat and fighting works.
EDIT:
On another thread we were discussing about this and I was asked to reply to what I found strange about having the at will tide of iron power. My reply
Last edited:
Punnuendo
First Post
I'm not sure if any RPG out there has this level of "reality" in the combat resolution. Except maybe Riddle of Steel. I think it'd be a neat system, and I'm sure others do as well. However, something that in-depth would probably turn a large percentage of the potential player base away.
I own Riddle of Steel and supplements. Its combat system is about specific body part locations and the like. Do not want. In a certain sense its combat mechanics I think are even more alien as a guide to roleplaying combat . Do not want.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
A bunch of people role-playing, while keeping score. That's a role-playing game. What you keep score of is the focus of the game (and some folks can be graded upon for different actions than others, thereby allowing different foci). Electing one person an independent judge or referee to keep score helps remove bias. For instance, it helps remove the "I shot you first" effect. To remove bias even more he or she can rely on moving judgments even further away from human error by using mechanisms like chance (die rolls). The judge can also portray external reality too, just in case interacting with it ever comes up. In most non-hobby role-playing it doesn't.
When people say "the game within the game" they are talking about something going on that doesn't have anything to do with role-playing. For example, you could play Chess as a role-playing game. Chess includes many different roles to play, but just because you can "re-skin" what a move means in Chess does not make it a role-playing game. The role-playing is occurring independently of playing Chess. Most players will never role-play along to it as 1) the game doesn't suggest doing so, and 2) it isn't very representative to what is happening in the role-played world. It's simply a bad mechanism for resolving reality in a hypothetical world. This has nothing to do with the quality of Chess as a game. It's actually one of the best around. IMHO.
When people say "the game within the game" they are talking about something going on that doesn't have anything to do with role-playing. For example, you could play Chess as a role-playing game. Chess includes many different roles to play, but just because you can "re-skin" what a move means in Chess does not make it a role-playing game. The role-playing is occurring independently of playing Chess. Most players will never role-play along to it as 1) the game doesn't suggest doing so, and 2) it isn't very representative to what is happening in the role-played world. It's simply a bad mechanism for resolving reality in a hypothetical world. This has nothing to do with the quality of Chess as a game. It's actually one of the best around. IMHO.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
This! The rules should facilitate task resolution. Combat is one type of task resolution, social interactions is another. Consistency throughout the various aspects should be one of the stated design goals. 3.5 had consistency; what it lacked at the upper levels was scalability. 4E lacks consistency but the scalability is slightly better. How does sacrificing consistency make any sense, especially after there was such an emphasis on exactly that in the previous edition?
My ultimate goal is for people to honestly evaluate what it is we're being asked to spend their money on. Is this new edition truly an improvement upon the previous? In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, no, it's not. You're paying more for less. And it isn't just a little bit less, it's a lot less. Again, I don't have the wordcounts, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine that because of the horribly ineffeicient use of space, you're only getting about 40% of the material in the 4E core books that you did in the 3.5.
That's where we disagree. The anger comes from the fact that WotC intentionally passed off a game that doesn't measure up to its own standards. Those of us who see it would very much like it if those who bought in would set aside the talking points marketing spoon fed everyone before release and be honest. WotC shortchanged us with this edition and now we either have to live with it for the five to eight year cycle, or we have to abandon it. The failure was WotC's for putting out a product that they knew would not going to go over well with much of its audience. With some amount of restructuring, they could have produced something that meets their goal of appealiong to new players while also satisfying the people who have been playing for years and know they deserve the same value for the dollar that they've received in the past. How many times have I read 4E players say that they have to wait for future books for things that used to be part of the core rules? It's almost every time I open a thread around here!
WotC fails with 4E because they put corporate greed first. Do they have the right to make money? Absolutely. However, this is, in my mind, a pretty clear case where satisfying their greed comes at our expense. If you're fine with this, then by all means, carry on. Keep paying too much to rebuy the material you should have gotten in the first three books. Just please be honest with yourselves about what you're getting.
Fifth Element
Legend
I await the evidence of your inside information with bated breath. I for one wasn't aware that you were a part of the 4E design process.
I also like how you continue to insult those who like 4E. "Just realize you're being stupid by buying the books", essentially.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
People talk. One of the reasons I wasn't part of the 4E design or development process was because I had some knowledge of what was coming and wasn't willing to associate myself with it. But hey, your hostility is appreciated. Gotta love the honesty going on here.
Do you feel stupid for buying the books?
Strange.
As someone who likes 4E, I can see why almost all choices were made and what they were trying to accomplish. From the encounter system, to the monetary/treasure system to the healing mechanics, almost everything to me seems clear. I like that in my games personally.
re: Task resolution
Er, what's the difference between the combat and non-combat task resolution system in 4E? You roll d20, add modifiers and compare to a DC? What are you referring to?
As someone who likes 4E, I can see why almost all choices were made and what they were trying to accomplish. From the encounter system, to the monetary/treasure system to the healing mechanics, almost everything to me seems clear. I like that in my games personally.
re: Task resolution
Er, what's the difference between the combat and non-combat task resolution system in 4E? You roll d20, add modifiers and compare to a DC? What are you referring to?
Similar Threads
