D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[soviet]

Since a game is just text on paper, the ONLY thing it does is "say something" to the reader, it will never DO anything on its own.

To be clear, if I publish a game that says 'This is Lyxen's favourite game', that would become true?

 

[Oofta]

The difference between "whether to cast Compel Duel or save the resource for a smite" is the sort of thing I think of when I think "abstract resource management". And hiding behind $random scenery (whether it's a doorway, crates, a wall, or a table) is one step away from generic. Focus fire is tactical - but it is tactical that does not engage with the specifics of the environment (and is elementary tactics). It's just a step in the normal "chew through the enemy's abstract hit points until they stop moving".

And in 4e I am still making every one of these choices you list. Rogues hide and ambush in 4e behind random terrain. Focus fire is very much a thing. The paladin has to decide whether to cast dailies or save them. Every single thing you mentioned as options (a) happens in 4e and (b) does not make this battle different from any other - or anything where we're actually fighting against a green screen with zero terrain. What I focused on was what makes 4e both different to and more tactical than other editions. Just saying that "you can do these things as well" when you do the exact same thing in 4e is not pointing out anything that's different.

On a tangent there are forced movement abilities in other editions but when it happens in other editions than 4e it's amazing, outstanding, and vanishingly rare outside setpieces. In 4e this is normal. The big difference is that although bull rushes and spells like Gust of Wind exist you almost exclusively have to give up all your combat damage to do them. Which means if they don't have a full effect of taking a foe out of action they do diddly squat. In 4e (and very occasionally in 5e) they are built into your normal abilities. And a dock is a very specific thing that is in that fight but possibly not any others in an entire campain.

This is why in editions that aren't 4e I find myself chipping away at enemy health bars with no meaningful consequence until they drop like it's a computer fighting game taking place against a backdrop that might be different stage to stage but is effectively a green screen. In 4e I'm actually engaging with the specifics of the game world and the way my character works. In other words, while you might be picking powers from a hand of cards I'm roleplaying in combat in a way I'm simply not in other D&D editions.

If you get to talk about how for you 4e is like a card game despite the fact that there have been cards produced for casters in most editions then I think I'm vastly more justified in pointing out that 4e has more, richer, and deeper tactics and makes me feel like we're actually on location and part of the environment rather than playing an abstract computer game chipping away at an abstract health bar the way combat in other versions of D&D does to me.

I agree that 4E was more complex, my comment ha nothing to do with 4E. I was simply pointing out that you were glossing over a lot of options available in 5E.

If you can point out aspects of 4E that you like, I can point out that combat in non 4E games can also include just as much strategy, teamwork and tactics. It may take different forms, many groups may not care, but my combats are not rote die rolling as people grunt at each other from across the table following predefined tactics.

Don't want people misrepresenting 4E? Try not misrepresenting other versions of the game as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I went back through the comments, I don't see anyone claiming that rituals didn't exist. People have stated things about how the game felt, their impressions and opinions but that's pretty much it. If I missed it feel free to provide the quote.

No, they claimed noncombat magic didn't exist; the poster pointed out it existed, in the Rituals. Lxen didn't say he was aware of that until later in the chain of responses.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So the other 5 enemies attacking are not a threat? Just that one guy 30 yards away that missed you with an arrow?

This is very much an edge case you're talking about. The mark in question is the mark coming specifically from a PHB fighter's attack - and I'm pretty sure that 100% of the fighter's inherent attacks are melee based (and if not it's close). So while it is possible for a fighter to combat challenge someone with an arrow using their ranged basic attack it almost never happens. If the fighter is regularly shooting a longbow at people something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

The fighter's mark was intended to work with a class that is all about getting in your face. And if you can't see how the fighter getting in your face is more threatening than other guys who aren't as close (pr even the stronger but less disciplined and focused barbarian) then as far as I'm concerned that's on you. If on the other hand you think that every game should be like 3.X and deal with all possible edge cases then we have a difference in design philosophy.

Somehow I can insult a pack of wolves so much that they feel compelled to attack me?

You must really hate bards.

Same way that there was no way to have a power that was awesome that my totally mundane, non magical fighter could only pull off once per day. Not because of circumstances, not because the scenario presented itself. Nope, just game balance.

It's a hell of a lot more realistic than the pre-4e (and especially the 3.X) approach where your fighter spams exactly. the. same. attack. every. single. round. Almost. untiringly. as. if. foes. will. never. learn. what. they. do.

Is the 4e approach perfect? No. It's a simplification and an abstraction. But it's an abstraction that gets closer to the way a good fighter should behave and act than anything that came before it in D&D. And an abstraction that allows fighters to be masters of combat who actually (a) have versatility and (b) actually mix up what they do because foes learn.

Can I think of other ways to get fighters that do that? Yes. And some of them are more realistic than the 4e approach. But are fighters that have to pace themselves and mix up their approaches a lot more realistic and better feeling to roleplay as as well as being simply more interesting than untiring attack spammers? Also yes.

Remember. You're not comparing the 4e fighter to some abstract perfect fighter. You're comparing them to other D&D fighters. Who (basically until the battlemaster) either (a) spammed standard attacks with little variety or (b) in 3.X pulled together a single uber attack like a spiked chain trip and spammed that.

The lack of logical in-world explanation is not a problem in and of itself. I just wish people would accept that for a lot of people it was simply that the fluff explaining how it worked was so flimsy that it felt like borderline sarcasm.

And I wish that other people were and are willing to accept that for many of us who like 4e the 4e worlds are vastly more realistic and better for roleplaying in than the previous D&D worlds with their stentorian spammy fighters that make us both (a) want to die of boredom and (b) do not even feel slightly like a master of fighting, just someone with biceps and One Trick Monsters Hate.

That's why to a lot of people it felt like a board/card game.

And to a lot of others having elements of a board game is a vast improvement over a literal hacked tabletop wargame.

Being able to envision what combats look like, having it look like something other than an anime cartoon in my head is part of why I personally prefer 5E.

And part of why I personally prefer 4e where combat wasn't mostly about two sides walking up to each other and playing patty-cake until one of them ran out of hit points and dropped. Instead you were using your brain to get an advantage by working with your capabilities as a combatant and using how they were positioned and teamwork at a level you simply don't in 5e.

And 4e is to me easier to visualise because where you are matters. It's not played against green screens.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree that 4E was more complex, my comment ha nothing to do with 4E. I was simply pointing out that you were glossing over a lot of options available in 5E.

I don't think I was. What I was pointing out was how the docks in specific would make the combat different and lead to a different fight. Yes I was being slightly flippant - but all your suggestions were entirely 100% independent of whether you were fighting on the docks, in a dungeon, or anywhere else. Tactics is about adapting to changing environments and circumstances and literally nothing you suggested used much about the environment other than "is there something for the rogue to hide behind", which was the point.

If you can point out aspects of 4E that you like, I can point out that combat in non 4E games can also include just as much strategy, teamwork and tactics

You haven't so far pointed out one single thing that's either teamwork or tactics that you do in other editions that you don't do in 4e. And I should have picked up on the grappling - with 4e being the only D&D edition I'm aware of where deliberate grapplers didn't make people groan.

As for strategy, I'll grant that. 4e didn't have pre-buffing. I think the game was better for it.

It may take different forms, many groups may not care, but my combats are not rote die rolling as people grunt at each other from across the table following predefined tactics.

Don't want people misrepresenting 4E? Try not misrepresenting other versions of the game as well.

Again, I don't think I am - I certainly wasn't simplifying anything that I wasn't also simplifying in 4e.. But you have not presented one single piece of teamwork or tactics that isn't in 4e.

 

[Staffan]

The "in your "thoughts" has no value compared to immediate threats, that's the problem, if there is no magic behind it. The mechanic looks and feels abstract (like a lot of 5e powers) because it purely technical and is supposed to work across the whole field of battle, instead of being the "in your face" kind of mark that you have in sports. This is why it feels unnatural, it was designed from a boardgame-y technical perspective and not even justified in terms of what happens in the game world. And it's the reason it was mostly dropped in 5e, except when there is obvious magic to support it (and even then, it is still more "in your face" for example with compelled duel).

Note that the Fighter's mark ability is based on attacking, and the fighter is a very strongly melee-based class. Unlike the fighters of other editions, you can't make a good archer using the fighter class in 4e – the fighter can certainly use a bow as a backup weapon, but all their Cool Stuff is melee-based. So the whole thing about marking people from across the battlefield is a bit academic, because it's generally not going to happen. Similarly, marking is only half of the fighter's Combat Challenge ability - the other is attacking back if you attack another target than the fighter who marked you. And if the fighter runs off, that's not going to happen, which means that you just take the -2.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This will blow your mind...

I PLAY 4e...BY THEATER OF THE MIND.

That's right, most of my 4e play was WITHOUT a grid or board or anything, and without miniatures.

I'll just suggest this has much more to do with how good one's spatial memory and imagination is than anything else. D&D4e would be far from the only game I absolutely needed a board for (its not even the only D&D version) because I'd never keep track of position, cover, who is in area effects and other things without it.

But part of that is that such things actually are relevant, and I have poor spatial memory and imagination. If someone has an excellent one, they can probably do it in a game like 4e too, it just sets the bar higher.

The most one can say about how much a game demands a board of some kind is the more position and movement matter, the more that will be true with more people, but there's no hard line of demarcation where it becomes true for everybody when the prior case was true with nobody. At most you can have games where position is mechanically irrelevant and where movement is so narrative in structure that there's no need to keep track of it, but that's only true in some very mechanically light games; its never been true in D&D because of area effect spells if nothing else.

 

[Lyxen]

Note that the Fighter's mark ability is based on attacking, and the fighter is a very strongly melee-based class. Unlike the fighters of other editions, you can't make a good archer using the fighter class in 4e – the fighter can certainly use a bow as a backup weapon, but all their Cool Stuff is melee-based. So the whole thing about marking people from across the battlefield is a bit academic, because it's generally not going to happen. Similarly, marking is only half of the fighter's Combat Challenge ability - the other is attacking back if you attack another target than the fighter who marked you. And if the fighter runs off, that's not going to happen, which means that you just take the -2.

I don't care about the likelihood, I'm talking about an explanation that makes sense in the narrative, which the game does not provide in any way, and which no one can. Why, if the fighter attacked, then ran away, do you still get a -2 ? Why does this work on an ooze ? It does not make any sense, it's purely mechanistic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't care about the likelihood, I'm talking about an explanation that makes sense in the narrative, which the game does not provide in any way, and which no one can. Why, if the fighter attacked, then ran away, do you still get a -2 ? Why does this work on an ooze ? It does not make any sense, it's purely mechanistic.

It lasts for literally a single round. Six seconds.

Is six seconds of being wary that the Fighter will do something after they attacked you literally such a massively onerous burden that you cannot envisage keeping an eye out for another hit just in case for that long? Seriously? Yet Sentinel is perfectly a-okay, even though it could be 9 different targets simultaneously, because it's totally more realistic to have perfect 360 degree coverage than it is for a single being to stay wary for 6 seconds and ONLY suffer issues if the Fighter is still close enough to attack. Because the rules say: "When a marked enemy is adjacent to the fighter who marked it, and shifts or makes an attack that does not include the fighter who marked it as a target, the fighter who marked it can make a melee basic attack against it as an immediate interrupt action." The only effect is momentary wariness unless the Fighter remains adjacent. And yet momentary wariness is perfectly acceptable from things like Goading Attack (target has disadvantage on attack rolls against anyone other than you, much more powerful than mere marking), even if you immediately move away. Heck, Goading Attack doesn't even require you to be adjacent at any point, you can literally trigger it from maximum range with a longbow or the like, and now the target (that may not even be able to see you!) has disadvantage on all attack rolls against anyone other than you.

Once more, it's the only edition where what you can do in combat and out of combat are so clearly separated from each other that there is no cross-utilisation possible. Even @EzekielRaiden recognised it

That is not what I said, not even close, so I would appreciate not being so misquoted in the future. I was referring to resources only.

 

[Parmandur]

Note that they also tried to expand the Brand by making Dungeons & Dragons Kreon sets! I always felt like that was a super missed opportunity to not use that toy line to give us, essentially, customizable minis. Grab the Tiefling minifigure, give it the right armor and weapon and BOOM! Here's a mini for your character! Heck... they even had blind bags that came with a circle base that fit perfectly into a 1 inch sided square! Really missed marketing potential there

The Kreon line failed on it's own terms, if the toys had caught on I'm sure thst would have taken off sooner or later.