Too Many Abilities?

[KarinsDad]

This will probably sound nitpicky, but players seem to have a more intuitive ability to handle Spring Attack (I move, I hit, I use up the rest of my movement) than Dodge (I have to remember to declare this bonus and declare it on one enemy).

I was not talking about the 3.5 version of Dodge (which I agree with you is a bit cumbersome). I was discussing a +1 bonus to Reflex Defense in 4E (with no declarations), not the silly 3.5 version that most people house rule that it is just a Dodge bonus.

My point was, if it is just a bonus that is always there (i.e. a modified form of Dodge that does not have a declaration element), it is easy to use. If it has special rules, then it is not as easy to use. In the case of Spring Attack, it cannot be used in Heavy Armor. It cannot be used if you cannot move after the attack. It cannot be used if you cannot move before the attack. It cannot be used if the user's Dex is lowered to 12 or less (e.g. possibly if Entangled for example), etc.

There are more rules associated with this. It is easy to forget one or it might be required to look a rule up.

A +1 bonus to Reflex Defense that is built into the character sheet and cannot be lost (assuming a given set of rules) is much simpler.

So, it depends on the mechanics of feats and talents. Unfortunately, I assume that many feats and talents will not be "this bland" (i.e. a simple bonus to something). The WotC design teams will probably try to make them more interesting, and hence, it will probably be more complex.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the designers have shifted the time requirement for each character in a combat.

Take a hypothetical example. Let's say your playing a fighter and in 3e take 1 minute to decide what your character is going to do on his initiative, and then 2 minutes executing it. This would include the rolling of die, determining of hits, adding of damages and other bonuses, etc.

Now in 4e, let's say it takes 2 minutes to determine your move since you have more choices, but it only takes 1 minute to execute. The time is the same, however, more of the time was spent in the player deciding his move (which is often fun) vs him crunching the numbers (often not fun).

 

[Kaffis]

I think people are missing the point of this thread.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is, you think that there will be more rules and abilities to learn the conditions and rules of, since we're adding (maybe) talents to the fray.

I think that it's a wash. We're not adding talents, per se -- we're trading in class abilities for them. Sure, we get fifteen talents per class (to guesstimate based on Saga -- most talent trees are 3-5 per talent tree, and most classes have access to 4 talent trees. Then, some PrC's overlap, so you're averaging on the low side on a total talents per number of classes involved basis), but if you think about it, before we had 10 class abilities anyways... This isn't about knowing X talent on top of the conditions for a rogue's sneak attack, and uncanny dodge, and evasion... in fact, all of those got converted to talents in Saga, reducing the number of "new" things from 3.x in the first place!

No, the number of special abilities per character is probably going to go up (slightly -- non-feat abilities will probably see a 25-33% increase in count, and I don't expect there to be a lot more feats than were core in 3.x, only that characters will have more from the list at once.. that's not increasing the number of things you "know" how to adjucate as a DM, because you knew all the feats anyways in 3.x after you ran a few parties' characters) for non-magic using classes, but not even come close to approaching the level "abilities" to learn that current magic using classes can field via spells. We don't know enough about magic using classes in 4E to say definitively, but my vague impression is that their spell lists will be trimmed, if anything, and they'll pick up talents and feats in numbers that won't exceed the trimmed spells.

So, my guess is that all characters will be drifting closer to a middle ground between a class with few abilities (barbarian, for instance) and the awesome array that is a well-studied wizard's spellbook. And, as has been pointed out, if you start with a low-level party (which will feel like heroes out of the gate), there will be more than adequate time to grow into them and learn the abilities as you go with an acceptably low amount of book-referencing at the table.

Edit: Upon posting this reply I had set aside to finish earlier, I see that you're also concerned about complexity forced on players looking for simple at-table play.

I think your concern might be a bit overzealous here, as well, especially for players. Players are, in my experience, very quick to pick up on and familiarize themselves with intrinsic abilities (not spells -- spells remain "look it up to remember how it works" fodder much longer because they're not fixed abilities that you always have -- since you change them out, you're not as motivated to remember spell X, and there's a much larger selection to remember, too). Even a first-time rogue will no longer have to look up the conditions for or dice granted by sneak attack beyond third or fourth level; likewise, by such a level, a barbarian player's got his bonuses for raging down pat. That's not suddenly going to change when you even double the abilities.

I think Stalker0 has it right on time spent at-table, too. That's very much been my experience with Saga, at least. Instead of declaring a full attack and rolling a bajillion attacks and tallying them up, our players ponder ways they can take advantage of or bypass cover with movement, and then roll their one attack. It feels faster, even if it might be roughly the same time total, because you're playing through options rather than simply crunching calculations.

 

[Someone]

With the advent of 4E, however, even the simple classes of "Fighters and Rogues" appear to potentially have more abilities than in 3.5.

The question is, does this make the game harder to play?

More choice options at every level don't automatically translate into more complexity at the table. It can be avoided by two ways:

-Some options are really just old abilities, only improved. An example would be Cleave and Great Cleave: you've picked two feats, but effectively you're using, need to write down and remember only one.

-You can't use all your abilities at once. If you have to prepare some of your powers, the ones the NPC hasn't prepared are irrelevant, and you can save time and effort by ignoring them. A current example would be the swordsage: he may know a ton of maneuvers (and had a choice every level selecting them), but can only ready a few. If you, as DM are preparing a swordsage NPC as foe, you can just choose the maneuvers he readies for the battle with the PCs and forget the rest.

 

[pogre]

It's a legitimate complaint from where I'm standing. 4E had some vague promise of having more streamlined combat. I don't think it is.

It does seem easier to DM though.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't think there will be much of any problem for the players. I am wondering about how it will be for DMs. So far the playtest reports I've seen have all been PCs challenging monsters, and the reports seem to indicate that it is faster and easier to play out a combat round.

As far as I know there has not been a playtest report with PCs taking on NPCs and how the DM was able to handle that combat, keeping track of each NPCs per encounter and per day abilities.

I'm also curious about how NPCs using per day abilities, which I assume to be more powerful than per encounters, changes things when a DM does not expect the NPC to survive and therefore does not feel the need to reserve per day abilities as PCs are more likely to do. Does it lead back to the "15-minute workday" syndrome as PCs are pushed to use all their per day abilities in one encounter and then want to rest to get them back?

Sure, it isn't the best DMing to metagame like that, but it will happen in some games and understanding how it affects balance is important.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think your concern might be a bit overzealous here, as well, especially for players. Players are, in my experience, very quick to pick up on and familiarize themselves with intrinsic abilities (not spells -- spells remain "look it up to remember how it works" fodder much longer because they're not fixed abilities that you always have -- since you change them out, you're not as motivated to remember spell X, and there's a much larger selection to remember, too).

It depends. I have two players at my table who forget some of their PC's abilities on a consistent basis. If they have more in 4E, it'll just mean they have more to forget.

In 3E/3.5 over a 7 year span, I cannot count on one hand the number of players who took Dodge and then forgot to use it. Probably 6 or 8 such players. If Immediate Actions for all classes become the norm for 4E, I can see it happening all over again.

 

[Mr Jack]

Much of the problem with the abilities in 3rd Ed was that they were hugely and often needlessly inconsistent (a problem made worse by the subtle shifts of 3.5) - a much consistent design philosophy would make options easier to manage and remember.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

After having played SWSE and having read many of the WotC entries and blogs, I'm wondering if DND 4E will have too many options per PC/NPC per level. Our gaming group discussed this last night after the game.

This is something I'm worried about as well. It would be extremely cool if a 4E designer/playtester chimed in on this.

 

[Celebrim]

It's a legitimate complaint from where I'm standing. 4E had some vague promise of having more streamlined combat. I don't think it is.

I hate vague promises. You might as well not say anything. I'd been more confident about those promises being fulfilled if thier had been a closer match between the proposed mechanical fix and the problem being solved.

On the other hand, much of my problem with 4e was that I didn't like some of the things that they were promising to do, so to a certain extent, if they don't live up to those promises it might be a better game AFAIC.