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

[marune]

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

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

Ok, but no more 10'x10' horses

(BTW, complete re-write of the riding rules so they work as well for the rider and the passenger(s))

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ok, but no more 10'x10' horses

YES to 10x10 horses!

The horses, of courses, are not 10x10. Their fighting space is!

When you aren't in combat, pack'em in as tight as you want. It's only when in-combat that the modifiers from squeezing become important.

 

[marune]

YES to 10x10 horses!

The horses, of courses, are not 10x10. Their fighting space is!

When you aren't in combat, pack'em in as tight as you want. It's only when in-combat that the modifiers from squeezing become important.

I know I know.. but a charge of knigts look strange on the battlemap.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Disagree with 1 -- dropping facing is a reasonable simplification; don't think 2 is an issue as nothing requires you to use minis any more than any prededing edition; and while 3 is a bit weird on the surface I've never really had a problem with it.

You really need to resolve the inherent conflict between your #1 and #2 issues, though.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand the OPs point on #1.

We had a 2E player who quit very early on in 3E because he had a real problem with an NPC with a longspear doing an AoO on an opponent who came up "behind him". And, the NPC with the longspear did not drop his guard to attack "behind" and himself provoke an AoO from the opponents "in front of him" (note: here, I am just using these phrases to indicate direction, and yes, I know there is no facing in 3E before someone has to state the obvious).

Gaming reality assumptions are very important for many players. Gravity. Direction. For example, the 3.5 rules do not allow an illusion to flank. But, the typical understanding of what flank is should allow for it (i.e. the target is having to devote attention to both flanking attackers). So basically, the illusion is worthless with respect to flank due to the flank game mechanic in this circumstance. On the other hand, an invisible character provides for a flank bonus to his ally, even if the target and/or the ally are unaware of him. Mystically, the target is suddenly easier to hit.

So yes, facing and other types of rules could result in fewer "plausibility" errors in the game mechanics for some players. Unfortunately, when that is done, more rules are added to the game and it becomes more complex instead of less.

I just hope that our group does not lose another gamer due to the bizzareness of 4E like what happened with 3E. Some people are quite set in their ways when it comes to gaming and gradual changes are sometimes better than drastic ones.

 

[blargney the second]

We had a 2E player who quit very early on in 3E because he had a real problem with an NPC with a longspear doing an AoO on an opponent who came up "behind him".

While it didn't result in anyone quitting the game, we had a very similar episode whe 3e first came out. The DM ended up cutting out AoOs from the game.
-blarg

 

[shadow]

I understand the OPs point on #1.

We had a 2E player who quit very early on in 3E because he had a real problem with an NPC with a longspear doing an AoO on an opponent who came up "behind him". And, the NPC with the longspear did not drop his guard to attack "behind" and himself provoke an AoO from the opponents "in front of him" (note: here, I am just using these phrases to indicate direction, and yes, I know there is no facing in 3E before someone has to state the obvious).

Yes this is exactly the thing I'm talking about. I've seen similar things happen before. While I like the idea of abstraction, trying to combine AoOs with an abstract combat system doesn't always seem to work.

You really need to resolve the inherent conflict between your #1 and #2 issues, though.

I know that a lot of people think there is some contradiction between me longing for a return of facing, and the idea that miniatures should be optional, but I don't think that facing rules necessarily require miniatures. In 2e I used facing rules, but rarely used miniatures. Let me clarify - although non-miniature combat is abstracted, a character sneaking up on a fighter who is actively engaged with an orc should be able to do a lot of damage with a sword to the back. (Yes there are flanking rules and "sneak-attack damage", but only rogues get the bonus to damage. On higher levels a mere +2 to hit doesn't seem like much of an advantage to non-rogue characters, especially when there is no damage bonus. High level characters rarely have to worry about getting hit from behind.)

Also, it seems weird to me that using a full attack a high level fighter can hit four different targets in four different directions. (i.e. hit one target at full BAB, swivel around 180 degrees and hit a target in the complete opposite direction for the second highest BAB, etc.)

 

[KarinsDad]

While it didn't result in anyone quitting the game, we had a very similar episode whe 3e first came out. The DM ended up cutting out AoOs from the game.

It happens. People have very strong opinions when it comes to their gaming and a major revision creates all sorts of havoc. I remember some real viciousness on the boards when 3E first came out. 3.5 was a lot more mellow.

 

[blargney the second]

It happens. People have very strong opinions when it comes to their gaming and a major revision creates all sorts of havoc. I remember some real viciousness on the boards when 3E first came out. 3.5 was a lot more mellow.

I didn't get back into gaming until just after 3E came out, so I missed all the viciousness. I do remember that there were plenty of people miffed at how quickly 3.5 came out, but they mostly conceded that the changes were necessary and good for the game. Hell, even I was taken aback at 3.5 initially, although I've come to appreciate it now.
-blarg

 

[Wik]

Y'know, AoO never bothered me, even when the switch happened. I guess it had something to do with the fact that there was a similar system in 2e's Combat and tactics that we had been using - or maybe we just had a house-ruled system. In any case, no one was bothered by them when they came out. Reach was a bit different, but we got used to it fast.

The big things that bothered us were mostly meta changes - druids not having a hierarchy anymore, the class-based prereqs for Prestige Classes (it took me a long time to get used to the fact that it'd be harder for a druid to become a loremaster than a wizard), and things like that.

As for the OP - I totally disagree. We run combats without using the battlemat quite a bit, and there have been no problems. What I would like to see is actually MORE of a focus on tactical play -

1) Keep everyone moving (no encouraging players to stay still so they can get full attacks)
2) Longer fights (in game time; anyone else tired of fights that last 30 seconds?)
3) Less "placing" of effects (no more figuring out where is the exact best place to put a fireball... variable area of effects would be AWESOME).