D&D 4E Some combat changes I want to see in 4e.

[shadow]

After becoming very burnt out on 3.5e, I have high hopes for 4e. From what I've heard so far, I have been very impressed. However, I really hope that 4e changes some fundamental aspects of combat that have really bugged me from the onset of 3.5e. The following is a list of some things that I would like to see in the 4e combat system. (Admittedly, we're more likely to see some changes than others.)

1. The reintroduction of the concept of facing: I never understood the concept of "combatants are always moving and whirling around in combat, so there is no facing". Huh? While I could envision a human looking over his shoulder, I have a hard time envisioning a giant centipede "constantly moving around, changing facing". What about an ancient dragon; is it supposed to be able to rotate 180 degrees instantly? Besides, 3.5e combat eliminates the option of sneaking up on an opponent and catching him unaware.

2. Deemphasis of miniatures and battlemats. I like miniatures, I really do. But, frankly, 3.5e's miniature rules suck. If I am going to use miniatures and play a wargame, I'll play a full scale wargame. I don't mind miniature rules, but I would like to see them presented as GURPS presents them, as an option. (This is somewhat unlikely to happen given that WotC's big money maker is their pre-painted miniature line.)

3. Along with the aforementioned reintroduction of facing, I want to see D&D getting away from the idea of all monsters fitting in a square. This concept was introduced only to accomodate 3.5e's crappy miniature rules. It leads to too many absurd concepts such as creatures having to "squeeze" through spaces smaller than the base of the figurine.

Your thoughts?

 

[Stalker0]

I disagree strongly with 1. 4e is going for more simplicity, and facing just isn't simple. More so, it encourages the use of minis, something your against in your 2nd statement.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

1. Facing should stay out. If a combat round is six seconds of dynamic combat, then it is unlikely that someone would stay facing the same direction the entire time. I like the 3.5 flanking rules basically reflecting that the opponent has to split his attention to foes in front and behind, making him easier to hit.

2. As Stalker0 said, this seems counter-intuitive to your first point, and they are an option. I've played without them and it works fine with a slightly less tactical combat attitude, a little trust and more careful descriptions of the situation.

3. Well, this only matters if you use minis. If you don't use minis, then does it really matter if something fits into a square?

 

[Nebulous]

I'd like to see dynamic changes in the way combat plays out; fighters don't stand in a static position and just swing. There needs to be a little strategy in there, above and beyond ducking AoO's.

 

[Jhaelen]

The following is a list of some things that I would like to see in the 4e combat system.

1. [snip]

2. [snip]

3. [snip]

Your thoughts?

I don't want to see 1., 2., or 3. All of these are just fine the way they are. They are abstractions that make combat run more smoothly. I'd prefer it if there were more abstractions like that, e.g. get rid of the rule that every other diagonal move counts as 2 squares.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I can agree with 2, and 3 follows naturally from that; I have no interest in the game-within-a-game that is miniatures combat, and facing is part of it. No facing and six second rounds improved over the 1 minute, staring in the same direction the whole time rounds of earlier editions. It's not like I won't ignore the crappy minis rules and just spitball it anyway - my players prefer it that way - but some official support would be nice. "I can move six squares!" my otyugh-feeder.

On a tangent I'm curious, with AoOs getting an overhaul, if they'll be able to successfully balance Large PCs (finally).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

1. From a reality simulation perspective, facing is really, really stupid. Sorry, but it's true - "look over your shoulder?" More like duck, weave, get behind light cover, constantly switch places with your opponent, etc. A dragon or a centipede have an even EASIER time turning around, btw, since their necks or entire bodies are snaky and flexible.
With that said, from a GAMEPLAY perspective, which is what matters to me, I LOVE facing. It adds another element of tactics to the Tactics/RPG that D&D at its best is, making it more like Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. FTW. I'd like to see facing return but can't imagine it will happen.

2. Man, what? Number one, D&D was born from miniatures, has always been accompanied by a miniatures line (Ral Partha used to provide the minis) and is at its best relative to other RPGs when it's used as a Tactics/RPG. If I didn't want the squad-level tactics game element, I sure as heck would be playing Spirit of the Century rather than D&D!
Number two, how the heck can you handle facing WITHOUT minis? These two seem at cross purposes.

3. Ugh, one I totally disagree with. The square spaces are so much easier to use with or without minis. As with facing, they actually make vastly more sense from a realism standpoint. Unlike with facing, 2x1 square spaces don't add a meaningful gameplay element.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I disagree with each of your points, but 1 and 2 most of all. Like others, I think both of these are counter-intuitive. Using facing is going to encourage the use of miniatures to prevent arguments about different people's "understanding" of the spoken description.

While 3 might be legitimate in real life, if the goal os to simplify combat ... squares are nice. The only thing that would be nicer is triangles, but that would then eliminate flanking (and possibly sneak attacks derived from flanking) and we really don't want to go there!

So ... I disagree completely.

 

[blargney the second]

I disagree on all three. D&D combat is an abstraction, and it works fine as a game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Chunk another disagreement with all of 'em on the barbie, if ya please.

Square fighting areas are so much better than non-square rectangles.