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

[MwaO]

Bards are explicitly using magic.

How is this any different from Goading Attack, used by a 5e Archer Battlemaster Fighter shooting an opponent with a bow? Both targets are penalized against attacking other opponents by apparently non-magical means.

 

[Undrave]

It's the only one that has cards representing those powers, that you can use a number of times for each of your mini-games in combat.

Hm... they do sell Spell Cards for 5e. I bought some for my Druid and I bought the Xanathar's ones instead of buying the full book.

Yeah, I thought that for a while, too... and honestly I've come around to the other side of it. Watching my players self-limit because they aren't sure what they can do with skills got me to write up a whole list of skill usages (taken directly from 4E, in fact) so that they had a real idea of what each of their skills could do, building a foundation for them to try and expand on it. I feel like giving structure to the player experience helps foster choice with the player because they feel more empowered rather than playing the "May I" game (something I'm fairly sure @EzekielRaiden has mentioned to me before, if on another board).

I feel very frustrated by 5e just refusing to give you examples! Like, I get it, 'make it up yourself!' is cute and 'Rulings not rules' makes for a nifty slogan, but throw me a damn bone!

Yes, but purely tactical. Not roleplaying, not storytelling, not anything that you can consistently explain in terms of the way things work in the world.

Would it have been more acceptable if it had been tagged as a 'Fear' effect? That seems like the most sensible route.

We've tried it for years, medium+ level intrigue where people sneak in using stealth or social powers and spells is impossible, it's either extremely long rituals, or combat powers on a grid, or a ritualised skill challenge because 4e insists on codifying everything.

Oooh... I get it... you're a WIZARD player

Actually it does, because there is no DC per level (bounded accuracy), it's the same chart whatever the level. Which is sort of normal, if you ask me, I don't see why climbing a ladder should be harder at level 30 than at level 1...

Climbing a ladder shouldn't require a roll. Only if there is circumstances that make the climb more difficult. And if it's difficult for Lv 30 then it's impossible for level 1.

Is there really a difference? Tactics require strategy, the amount of strategizing will affect outcome is part of what determines how tactical a game is. With my fighter, I was always balancing things like power attack, risking an AOO to get flanking, investing in tumbling and spiked armor. The definition of tactics that is probably closest: "any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success."

So yes, there was more you could do in 3.5 from character builds to buffing to positioning to general strategies during combat that to me make it more tactical than 5E. Of course it's all just a fuzzy judgement call, it's not like there's a universal guideline to determine how tactical a game is.

Generally speaking, it's accepted that 'strategy' is what you do when planning and 'tactics' is when you react to situations in progress. Strategy end when you make first contact with the enemy.

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.

Ah! that's true. But still feels like it was a marketing fail not to try to sell the mini-figures to D&D players.

The main difference is that 5e has actually recognised that the trauma of adversarial DMing is in the past, it's collaborative for everyone, whereas 4e was mostly collaborative for the players.

I mean... don't forget that 5e came AFTER 4e. The Historical context helps explain why the trauma of the adversarial DM was much more fresh in 4e.

And how much XP does it take to get to level 1 again?

We don't know, but we DO know the step between level 1 and level 2, and if that step is the same, then that means the starting point is similar. And all other level up are the same.

I'd add to this that Keep on the Shadowfell, which was the 4e opening adventure, was a significantly worse adventure than The Forest Oracle and would have been bad in any edition. It's great through Irontooth ... up until you reach the Keep itself. Inside the keep is (from memory - I did count at one point) 17 combats in a row with basically nothing between them and not even any interesting combat environments. It would be bad in any edition, but 4e makes up for the long combats with dynamism and tactics. But when all you have is cramped rooms with no fun terrain the length of 4e combats is made even more of a problem.

And the follow up with the pyramid or whatever was even worse, with large segment made up of short 5e feet wide corridors with no interesting features whatsoever! It was SO cramped and just cut off a ton of potential power use.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Bards are explicitly using magic.

Or are liminal. Which is where I prefer them - abilities rather than the same sort of spells.

I don't think any version of D&D is particularly realistic. As far as spamming the same attacks, what do you think boxers do?

Styles make fights and any boxer who just spams attacks is going to lose. Boxers try to control the range and change what they do in response to their opponent. They try, depending on the style to either keep their distance to prevent their opponent closing or they try to take the center and then cut off the ring to trap their retreating opponent in the corner. They sometimes lean on each other, forcing their weight onto each other and carry their weight to wear each other out (something Wilder complained Fury did to him last month).

Muhammad Ali's famous "Rope a Dope" involved using the environment. In specific leaning against the ropes and using their elasticity to make incoming punches less effective as the punch-spammers wore themselves out.

There are only a few different tactics and ways of throwing punches which, depending on the version of the game,
may be represented or not.

Boxing has been known as "the sweet science" for over two centuries because so much of it is in the head. Watch the way boxers move. It's a battle between two men that may be more physical than mental - but between Wilder and Fury Wilder is the more athletic and the harder hitting. Fury's out-thought him and is 2-0 up with one draw.

4e's focus on moving and on preparation is much more akin to high level boxing than just spamming attacks is.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not you enjoy 4E more than other version or think it's more realistic. I don't think my rogue buddy throwing a single dagger suddenly creates a cloud of daggers that hits and blinds multiple opponent is far less realistic than other versions of the game. Or the idea that my fighter could just flail around with his hammer and create an aura of automatic damage. If it works for you, great. I accept that you like it. Bully for you. It didn't work for me or most people I played with which is why we moved on and haven't looked back.

If you hadn't looked back we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is a thread specifically about 4e and what makes 4e a great tactical game. If you're in this thread then you are looking back at 4e. Your very first post in this thread opens "It got to the point I started thinking of 4E as a tactical card game." Which does nothing to explain why 4e is or isn't tactical other than that 4e had options and complexity. It's just you deciding that it's a thread about 4e and therefore you must take the opportunity to derail the thread by, instead of talking about details, express that you personally disliked it while not providing any meaningful information about what makes it tactical.

Your second post in this thread was once again not talking about how or why 4e was tactical (or even whether it wasn't). Instead it was just once more you expressing your dislike of 4e - this time with even less relevance to the thread's topic. Your third post in this thread is once more you taking the opportunity to have another dump on 4e - and you even claim that "there's no logical reason" someone should be more worried about the character that gets the Combat Challenge ability that means they are fast enough to get a free attack if you don't keep your eyes on them and the barbarian isn't. That one character needs less of an opportunity to stab you than another is a very good reason to watch them more closely. I don't know in this case whether you are intentionally misrepresenting the mechanics of 4e or whether you just never actually understood them.

Please. Move on from 4e. It's pretty clearly living rent-free in your head and you obviously don't like it.

In any case I don't see any reason to continue this. You think 4E was more realistic, I don't. You don't like fighters in other editions, I do. You may like butternut squash tapioca mint ice cream, I prefer chocolate. Life would be boring if we all liked the same thing. Have a good one.

Life would indeed be boring if we all liked the same thing. I e.g. don't like Pathfinder. So I don't play Pathfinder and I don't talk much about Pathfinder except for a direct meaningful comparison to 4e or 5e (both of which I play and DM) or when specifically asked what I think about it. It exists and it's fine for those that like it.

I do however like 4e and like to share what I like about it. Which is why I'm in this thread with some pretty detailed posts - rather than in a Pathfinder thread spreading my dislike, spreading over the usable space, and making peoples' days worse because either they need to read about my dislike and whiny complaints.

Have a good one and I hope to see you in threads where you are positive about things.

 

[Aldarc]

Again. I'm just pushing back on the claims of conspiracy and that people that disliked the game never played it. Forgetting minor details does not change the overall narrative.

However, claiming that the people who disliked it had played it (or valuable experience with the game) would also be false, because proving that there were people who played it and disliked it doesn't disprove the fact that there were definitely people who never played it and propagating falsehoods about the edition, including one of my friends and old DMs, who had never played the game but who was spouting of anti-4e rhetoric from the internet. It's easy to prove that there are people who had played it and disliked it. The problem is, however, when one therefore asserts that people have played it and disliked it that this somehow erases how many had not played the game yet propagated falsehoods or a lot hateful rhetoric towards the edition. The former is the motte to the later argument's bailey.

 

[billd91]

How is this any different from Goading Attack, used by a 5e Archer Battlemaster Fighter shooting an opponent with a bow? Both targets are penalized against attacking other opponents by apparently non-magical means.

There are those of us who like fighters getting abilities like this but still dislike various implementations of them. In the case of goading attack, a target may be unaffected due to a Wisdom save and strong-willed ones will resist better than weak-willed ones. For me, that method makes narrative sense inherently and works far better than things like the 4e fighter's combat challenge or powers like Come and Get It which just... happen... because whatever and not because someone's defenses/better sense were overcome.
So it's not always about magic vs mundane. Sometimes it's about how the ability is structured and resisted.

 

[Parmandur]

I feel very frustrated by 5e just refusing to give you examples! Like, I get it, 'make it up yourself!' is cute and 'Rulings not rules' makes for a nifty slogan, but throw me a damn bone!

I mean, the books do have examples? In terms of DC's, everything is covered in one table in the DMG that is discussed at length.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are those of us who like fighters getting abilities like this but still dislike various implementations of them. In the case of goading attack, a target may be unaffected due to a Wisdom save and strong-willed ones will resist better than weak-willed ones. For me, that method makes narrative sense inherently and works far better than things like the 4e fighter's combat challenge or powers like Come and Get It which just... happen... because whatever and not because someone's defenses/better sense were overcome.
So it's not always about magic vs mundane. Sometimes it's about how the ability is structured and resisted.

Come and Get It got errata'd to a wisdom thing.

And combat challenge isn't something that "just happens". It's "The fighter gets in their target's face when they attack them - and then because they are already in someone's face and they are that fast they get to use opportunities others couldn't". It makes much more narrative sense to me than e.g. the Sentinel feat where it automatically applies to everyone around them.

 

[billd91]

Come and Get It got errata'd to a wisdom thing.

And combat challenge isn't something that "just happens". It's "The fighter gets in their target's face when they attack them - and then because they are already in someone's face and they are that fast they get to use opportunities others couldn't". It makes much more narrative sense to me than e.g. the Sentinel feat where it automatically applies to everyone around them.

Combat challenge doesn't even require the fighter to hit much less get up in the target's face - whereas the character with sentinel as a feat gets a chance to make use of opportunities nobody else sees - without imposing any kind of unresistable penalty on the target. So, again, marking never worked for me in any kind of narrative sense while goading strike (requiring both a hit and a failed save) does.
And if Come and Get It was changed in errata, it was well after we already gave up 4e as not the D&D for us (a first out of all editions and so far only case of that happening).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Combat challenge doesn't even require the fighter to hit much less get up in the target's face

It requires the fighter to attack. Which is where they are getting up in the target's face.

- whereas the character with sentinel as a feat gets a chance to make use of opportunities nobody else sees

Like Combat Challenge. It's just that the challenge requires active targeting of foes.

 

[billd91]

It requires the fighter to attack. Which is where they are getting up in the target's face.

Unless he whips a dagger at the target from across the room. Yet it still works the same. Narrative fail.

Like Combat Challenge. It's just that the challenge requires active targeting of foes.

Not like combat challenge since the fighter never imposes an irresistible penalty to his target's behavior. Equivalence fail.

Like I said, 4e never worked for me. So we dumped it and I've explained some of the reasons why relevant to the post to which I replied. Why 4e worked for you is your affair and your arguments in that favor aren't swaying me.