The Power System, Combat, and the Rest of the Game

[vagabundo]

I'd prefer if there are been more of a smushing of the power system, either on a power source or class basis.

I think we'll see a softening of the power system over the next few years and it will be far more flexible by the end of 4e. But it works for me now, I can work within it's limits as a DM. And the benefits it provides are too good to ignore.

(Without reading the rest of the thread) I was with you for a lot of your post. But this, I do not agree with. Its still D&D and very recognizable as such.

Hear ye and hear him...

 

[FireLance]

Would you allow the DM to be the final arbiter of what is "realistic" in a D&D game? If so, there is one way to make the game more "realistic", but at a (possibly significant) cost in DM bandwidth: the DM simply decides which encounter and daily powers are available to the PC in each encounter, based on his judgement of which powers would realistically be effective against the opponents. For example, if an encounter features monsters that won't approach the PC when provoked, the DM picks another 7th-level encounter power for the fighter instead of come and get it.

Alternatively, if we flavor the various powers as the PC seeing and seizing chances to pull off a variety of maneuvers, the powers available to each PC in an encounter could be completely random - for example, a 7th-level PC would randomly select one 1st, one 3rd and one 7th-level encounter power for his class in each encounter. Since the PC won't be able to pull off the same tricks every fight, this approach may appear more similar to the chaos of combat and thus seem more realistic. This method of play probably works better with power cards, though - they would make it easier to randomly pick the powers available.

Both these approaches probably work better for martial powers than for arcane or divine ones, though - thematically, it doesn't seem strange that a martial character may be able to trip an opponent one fight and cover an ally's retreat in another (spinning sweep and covering attack respectively, both 1st-level fighter encounter powers). Divine prayers and arcane spells should arguably be more stable since they are generally assumed to be more formulaic. Nonetheless, a deity of luck or fate might bestow random or particularly appropriate blessings, and unpredictable effects are very appropriate for a wild magic sorcerer!

 

[Ariosto]

The observation that D&D is generally a game not of one-on-one duels but of small unit tactics is very sound. Actually, that is rather to the point of the default level of abstraction in the old TSR editions. It plays out much like a skirmish level war game, and at a similarly brisk pace (very quickly per engagement with few figures deployed).

The basic interaction of hit dice / level, armor class and hit points is meant really to answer the questions of (A) who won and (B) at what cost. As characters gain levels there tend to be increasingly more decision points between initial engagement and death. However, no more than an adequate number of those is wanted; as hit points mount, so generally (but more slowly) does the frequency of hits.

As combat in itself is an obstacle on the way to the object of treasure, and wandering monsters (lacking treasure) are by design a waste of time to fight, speedy resolution -- providing for more fights per session, and more of other activities -- is highly desirable. The outcome is what is important in the shaping of subsequent strategic decisions, among which that of whether to advance, stand, retreat or flee ranks high. The central question is whether an expedition should press on with remaining resources or fall back.

Micro-tactics, in the greater context of the game, are trivial. The same tactics of terrain and formation apply as in a historical game. Morale has its key place. The choice of whether to cast a spell is significant, as is the decision to use any other telling but keenly limited resource. To get down to individual lunges, ripostes and so on would in most cases just be a drag.

"Zooming in" on fine details of a few seconds is only occasional, and in my experience nearly always dealt with using ad hoc adjustments to the basic mechanics based on an assessment of the immediate particulars. Stratagems such as tripping, blinding or disarming tend to be regarded as gambles in the first instance and thereafter -- as opponents will be wary for the signs "telegraphing" the move -- as most unlikely of success. Effects that seem applicable for long periods, on par with having the low sun in one's eyes, are likely to produce small (e.g., +/-1 to hit) modifiers.

With 3E and 4E, there has been a sort of feedback loop between the resource-allocation game of "character builds" and the combat game -- resulting in great prolongation of both, but most tellingly (because it arises repeatedly) of the latter.

Perhaps that started with a desire to focus more on each fight, but again the reshaping of mechanics further reshapes priorities ... and that goes around and back again.

Considering the products, I am afraid that claims that "realism is too complex and time consuming" must fall on deaf ears where I am concerned.

 

[gizmo33]

(In movies combatants don't often stand toe-to-toe in one spot repeating the same attacks; They move around and try many different tactics).

Whereas IRL combatants confine themselves to seperate 5 ft squares?

There is hardly anything about 3E combat that is realistic and I'm somewhat baffled as to why someone would think it's a simulator for anything (or prior editions for that matter). The flavor text in 4E is as easily ignored as most of the things that happened in 3E. In 3E my high level fighter can dive head-first off of a 100 ft cliff, and get up the next round and run his full movement rate.

In fact,
> my movement rate never changes unless the terrain does (IRL, people's physical capabilities are not constant)
> damage never affects my strength, dexterity, etc.
> poison affects me if I'm "hit" but not "hit"
> I never make mistakes in judging distances
> I never accidently hit the guy standing next to me with my sword
> I never miscast a spell
> I can actually attack someone first with a dagger when they have a longsword if I "win initiative"
> I can play out my entire combat round while everyone else stands around and watches me
> a typical combat is me standing in one 5 ft square and someone else standing in theirs
> I never drop my weapon unless someone uses some maneuver
> My weapon never breaks unless someone uses a maneuver
> My wounds never get infected unless there's some special magic at work
> I have the same chance of hitting an object with a bow at 10 ft as I have of hitting the same object at 40 ft

And these are some random things that come to mind - I'm sure someone who tried to think about this could come up with a list 10x as long.

I would be really surprised if anyone who hasn't played 3E before picks up the game and says "wow, this is so realistic". There's nothing "realistic" about an adventurer being swallowed over and over by purple worms during his career and yet he's never broken a bone or had to sharpen his sword. What's "realistic" about starting off your career as a 1st level noob, and within a few months you're slaying dragons and diving head-first off of cliffs? How about at getting better at picking locks because you were standing next to a guy that fireballed some orcs? Or you get more powers from your god because you've killed some monsters?

The biggest issue in my opinion, and the one I have mixed feelings about, is the difference between realistic and cinematic combat. It's probably one of the biggest distinctions between 4E and 3E.

IMO there is no realistic combat in 3E. In fact, I have a hard time saying that's even a matter of opinion. As another poster pointed out, DnD combat has always been designed to determine outcome, and the detail of what actually happened during combat was not a priority. 3E introduced 5 ft squares and other details - but I don't see any reason to treat those things differently that saving throws and hit points were treated in prior editions. I seriously would expect that anyone who hadn't played 3E before would laugh at me if I told them that the system were designed to model realistic medieval combat.

 

[malraux]

The biggest issue in my opinion, and the one I have mixed feelings about, is the difference between realistic and cinematic combat. It's probably one of the biggest distinctions between 4E and 3E.

IMO, 4e combat is a pretty good combat simulator. Its just simulating a different reality from our own. To me, the martial power source isn't the equivalent of just being a well trained guy in our reality, but the source of action hero abilities in something like Die Hard. At first glance it might seem like its our reality, but a deeper look reveals that its not quite. Thus being unable to repeatedly use the same power over and over doesn't break verisimilitude for me, because its not what I'd expect in an action movie.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Thus being unable to repeatedly use the same power over and over doesn't break verisimilitude for me, because its not what I'd expect in an action movie.

I agree with your premise, but I might add that it's not what anyone should expect in real life either. Trip spam builds aren't going to work in real life the way they do in 3e. Not against anyone remotely competent, anyway.

And in real life, grappling is WAY easier and more effective than it was in 3e.

The whole "4e doesn't model realistic combat as well as 3e did" meme is patently ridiculous. Neither of them do it at all well, and 4e has as many strengths as weaknesses in this regard, relative to 3e, IMO.

For example, to lean on the ridonkulous trip monkey of 3e a little more.... a once-per-encounter trip effect is WAY more realistic than spamming it effectively, in that your opponent will pick up quickly that you are a one-trick pony and prevent you from using it as well FAST. If you want to be a trip monkey in real life, you would have to learn multiple techniques to put someone on the floor (read: learn additional powers that give a knock-down effect).

That aside, I agree with the premise overall.... and if given the choice of simulating an action movie or simulating archaic real life combat that no one at the table has any experience with (and no one designing the game had experience with), I'll go with modeling the action movie every day of the week. If nothing else, people at the table will have shared experience to draw from when describing their kewl moves.

 

[Azgulor]

Remember how I mentioned that I liked 4E's cinematic feel to combat but didn't it's lack of verisimilitude? The problem is this: Cinematic combat and realistic combat seem to be diametrically opposed to one another.

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Which approach to player ability and combat do you think the next edition of the game should subscribe to? I personally hope for some sort of middle ground that can bring back a bit of simulationism without sacrificing mobile and exciting combat.

I agree with you assessment of the systems. However, I don't think cinematic combat & realistic combat have to be radically removed from one another.

In my campaigns, I've spiced up combat by taking the combat challenges & stunts from Iron Heroes. They've introduced a tactical element and fostered a more cinematic feel to the combats. Other systems that do this to one degree or another are Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might and Conan RPG's combat maneuvers. They are clear illustrations that more exciting combat is possible within the 3.x rules without the radical departure that 4e took. Incidentally, Mike Mearls wrote Iron Heroes and the Book of Iron Might.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3e believable? This is a game where you can dodge fireballs while asleep.

It's D&D. D&D is never realistic. No game with classes, levels and hit points can be. However you're right that 3e introduced some important elements that improve combat verisimilitude such as reach and attacks of opportunity.

I think you're over-emphasising the difference between 3e and 4e by focusing on the powers. That's the major area of change between the two editions. The rest - the basic character classes, races, what the PCs do, monsters, magic items - is good ol' D&D. The combat system is remarkably similar, heck 4e retains reach, opportunity attacks, five-foot-steps and swift actions.

 

[Nymrohd]

And all those ideas were there in AD&D too (Player's Option: Combat & Tactics I'm looking at you!).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think there is a happy middle ground.

For instance, a combat system where defense plays more of an active role, so that the second time someone tries to hit you with a given move, you can interrupt, intercept, and gain an advantage of your own (much like how you can learn someone's movement and fighting style over time and better anticipate their actions).

Or a combat system that goes more abstract, and lets you use many situational powers that vary from round to round and combat to combat.

I have some pretty big issues with the powers system, but it is designed to be a cinematic system. I think the idea of "more exciting combat!" can be met with other, less-violent tweaks to the system.

PATHFINDER doesn't do too shabby of a job in this department, adding some nice spice to a lot of the martial classes.