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

[MwaO]

YUP! I mean, a lot of consumables are pretty worthless after a while, but there are some that they didn't quite figure out exactly how crazy good they were. The 'AoE ammunition' was one of those. You could fire ammo that was 10 levels beneath you, the cost was stupidly close to zero, and yeah, the effects were marginal, but you're still firing an arrow at someone, its no worse than any other arrow! Plus there's a bit o' splash damage, what is not to like?

You're at a penalty to hit with low-level ammunition because it replaces the enhancement bonus...

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's one of the tactical points where Pathfinder 2 really differs from 4e. In 4e, moving is a separate thing from attacking: you have one standard action which is usually used for attacking in one way or another, and one move action that's usually used for, well, moving. So unless you're faster than your opponent, there's no use in moving away from them, because they can move and attack just as well as they could make an attack without moving*. In addition, opportunity attacks are a thing pretty much everyone can do if you move away without Stepping first or using some form of shenanigans.

...

* This is of course grossly simplified, and you can certainly have tactical reasons for moving around in 4e. The main one I can think of is moving to reduce the monster's ability to catch multiple people in an AOE, or to set up combat advantage for an ally.

This is not how 4e works in practice at all and there is a lot of movement. Combat advantage and flanking are, of course things. But a lot of the design of 4e provides reasons to move that make it worthwhile. Off the top of my head (and I've already mentioned some of these in the thread):

• Forced movement and terrain is a big thing in 4e. And you don't get to push the bad guys into their own pit traps or summoning circles, or the open latrine without moving around to set it up. And moving around to prevent them doing the same to you.
• The "default" 4e fight isn't five on one but five on five (and ranges from one solo (e.g. a dragon) to 20 minions).
  • You want to move to avoid being surrounded when you're outnumbered. And to both get into and break flanks.
  • The combination of the expectation of multiple enemies, the enemies having combat roles, and the easy to use statblocks means that most combats contain combined arms with e.g. three battletested orcs and two orc archers in a simple fight. The battletested orc has an AC 3 higher than the archer and more hp. The battletested orc can throw a handaxe but it does a lot less damage than their battleaxe, while the archer's handaxe only does about two thirds the damage of their bow. So you want to (a) force the archers into melee so they are using their backup axes and (b) pin down the battletested orcs so they can't melee and instead have to throw axes.
    • Yes, I'm aware Pathfinder has multiple statblocks - but the Orc Brute and Orc Warrior have the same sort of relationship between their javelins and melee weapons (+2 or +3 to hit in melee, same amount of damage) and the Orc Warlord is again the same sort of melee primary fighter with a backup axe. It just has a greatclub so hits harder in melee.
    • Yes with custom statblocks you can make this effect in Pathfinder 2e or any edition of D&D just by giving some orcs axes and shields and others bows. But 4e is (a) the only D&D to consistently actively suggest you do this in the monster guides and (b) the only one to provide multiple statblocks in the monster guides. You can do this with enough work and pre-planning but 4e makes it easy. So it's done a lot more in 4e.
• 4e powers provide both a lot of mobility and a lot of incentives to move.
  • Get out of the fire! And then push the enemy in it. There are plenty of ways of setting the ground on fire in 4e.
  • A lot of melee types have powers like Sweeping Blow that gives them a 1/encounter trick to attack everyone around them. This of course gives them an incentive to jump into the middle of everyone to use this - then get out of there. This doesn't happen when almost all your attacks are single target. And isn't so interesting when you get to spam the move that lets you attack all the enemies round you.
  • A lot of attack powers (especially for the rogue) give you extra movement (either normal or shifting/stepping) within the ability.
  • Dazed is a common rider and dazed targets can't make opportunity attacks.
  • With marking and punishment mechanics and powers and abilities that protect you from opportunity attacks it's not unknown for the right sort of tactician to provoke opportunity attacks just to give the fighter a free swing.
  • Certain powers also immobilise foes. Immobilise them and step back (or knock them over or daze them and step back thanks to a bug/feature in 4e) and they have to throw something at you if they want to attack.
  • Certain other powers slide your allies (effectively a step) so you can work together quite well.
  • If you've pushed the foe with your attack you have de facto disengaged or effectively stepped away. So you can then move a lot more freely.

So yes, it is pretty mobile when run and played well because there are both incentives to move and tools to allow you to move. And this is still more of why 4e is a tactical game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're missing my point. If you don't do a 2 or 3 action cost action in PF2e you can do three one cost Actions. And normal attacks and cantrips are one cost actions. Unless I've forgotten, At Wills are still Standard actions, no? So you are only trading off different actions to get a Full Action or the like; that means its not really a trade off, you just use the more useful one (subject to wanting to save an Encounter or Daily of course), where here you have to decide a two or three action cost action is actually worth more than using several smaller ones. At most its compareable to a Full action in contrast to doing a Standard and a Move, but I don't recall that many Move attacks.

Right, I get that, but what I'm saying is, once you start really analyzing it, there are just as many different trade offs in each system, and they involve similar issues. Presumably there are added benefits to multi-action PF2e attacks, just like there are added benefits to 4e Encounter powers or Daily powers. I don't know PF2e enough to understand the OVERALL resource model, but CLEARLY there's a trade-off going on there! In 4e a lot of the balance is actually a question of intensity, not just tactical appropriateness. It might be a golden opportunity to lob a daily AoE out there, but it might be even MORE advantageous to keep using less precious resources, with the assumption that if a combat takes an extra round or two whatever added damage, etc. accrues to the party is balanced out by keeping hold of those dailies for later. Its a genuine series of trade offs on several dimensions.

Again, I'm not really at all familiar with PF2e enough to gauge all of the trade offs that might be there. If 2 or 3 action attacks are also rationed on a daily basis or something like that, then you have pretty much the same set of degrees of freedom. If not, then you may have slightly more at the "what options do I have this turn" level, but not in total. This also assumes we are not considering things like minor actions, WHICH CAN BE QUITE IMPORTANT. Nor that we touch upon things like APs, which are another way to tweak the intensity knob.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's one of the tactical points where Pathfinder 2 really differs from 4e. In 4e, moving is a separate thing from attacking: you have one standard action which is usually used for attacking in one way or another, and one move action that's usually used for, well, moving. So unless you're faster than your opponent, there's no use in moving away from them, because they can move and attack just as well as they could make an attack without moving*. In addition, opportunity attacks are a thing pretty much everyone can do if you move away without Stepping first or using some form of shenanigans.

But in PF2, movement is an action like any other. If you move so the enemy can't attack you, it will need to spend an action to follow. And PF2 is FULL of monsters that have some pretty strong things they can do if you let them spend three actions on them, such as a Strike + Grab + Constrict routine.

* This is of course grossly simplified, and you can certainly have tactical reasons for moving around in 4e. The main one I can think of is moving to reduce the monster's ability to catch multiple people in an AOE, or to set up combat advantage for an ally.

4e is a very mobility-focused game. Sure, you can create PC builds that don't LIKE to move a ton, but the whole point of making move and attack independent operations was to GET RID OF what happened in 3.x where the only rational thing for a fighter to do was basically stand in one place and put everything into multi-attacking. 3.x is very anti-moving-around, it just plain discourages it in a lot of cases. With 4e the balance of factors is different. You won't reduce the other guy's number or potency of attacks (very often) simply by moving, but you won't reduce your own offensive capability either. Charging (and there are a very few other "move and attack" powers too) is a thing, remember, and quite potent! And you CAN double-move as well, which means the other guy has to give up his attacks, or maybe he can charge you in turn (which is a bit weird, but so goes turn-based combat).

The point is, kiting may be a bit more effective in PF2e, at a basic mechanical level, but most of the same things will work in both games, just with slightly different trade offs. OAs also add to the equation too, but overall unless you make crummy little cul-de-sac battlefields with no dynamic components to them, your combats in 4e should feature a good bit of movement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're at a penalty to hit with low-level ammunition because it replaces the enhancement bonus...

Yeah, but in many cases the difference is small, or even non-existent (IE if you are not primarily an archer, like a TWF Ranger). Getting to affect 2, 3, or even 4 targets, even if the effect is modest, can easily be worth suffering a -1 to-hit. Of course the reverse sort of option was good too, having 1 or 2 really good pieces of ammo means, assuming you don't shoot a lot of ammo, you're effectively as good as having an at-level or higher ranged weapon, but at 1/5 or less of the cost! Over a whole campaign that can be a nice savings. Blast Packs are another one where it can definitely pay to stock up on some, even if they're a bit lower level. En masse they can be kind of obnoxious! There was a warlock in a party I GMed that specialized in giving the bad guys a nasty surprise with those things. He was pretty creative!

 

[FrogReaver]

To answer the OP, 4e is tactical because:
1. It's extremely balanced in that most attacks and characters do similar amounts of damage regardless of the powers chosen (though due to the sheer number of powers, feats, and magic item choice+shopping there ended up being some outliers when certain things got combo'd together).
2. Most of the abilities used do more than just damage. Almost every ability had some kind of rider effect.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, I get that, but what I'm saying is, once you start really analyzing it, there are just as many different trade offs in each system, and they involve similar issues. Presumably there are added benefits to multi-action PF2e attacks, just like there are added benefits to 4e Encounter powers or Daily powers. I don't know PF2e enough to understand the OVERALL resource model, but CLEARLY there's a trade-off going on there! In 4e a lot of the balance is actually a question of intensity, not just tactical appropriateness. It might be a golden opportunity to lob a daily AoE out there, but it might be even MORE advantageous to keep using less precious resources, with the assumption that if a combat takes an extra round or two whatever added damage, etc. accrues to the party is balanced out by keeping hold of those dailies for later. Its a genuine series of trade offs on several dimensions.

But it still usually comes down to "Is it worth using up my Encounter or Daily or not?" Otherwise there's rarely a case where the choice isn't fairly clear cut (at least it wasn't in my experience). In PF2e, the choice isn't clearcut for reasons that have nothing to do with consumable use resources much of the time (as a lot of those action choices are not based on things that are limited use).

Again, I'm not really at all familiar with PF2e enough to gauge all of the trade offs that might be there. If 2 or 3 action attacks are also rationed on a daily basis or something like that, then you have pretty much the same set of degrees of freedom. If not, then you may have slightly more at the "what options do I have this turn" level, but not in total. This also assumes we are not considering things like minor actions, WHICH CAN BE QUITE IMPORTANT. Nor that we touch upon things like APs, which are another way to tweak the intensity knob.

I didn't find Minor Actions that important on any consistent basis. There were a few cases where they were, but they were usually both situational and of limited use (Clerical Healing Words for example).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Of course it will. Climbing a ladder is easy, which means DC 5 in 5e, but which means DC 19 if you are level 30, which means that it's way harder if you happen to have a commoner with you at the time.

And, once more, this shows that you don't understand 5e rules. The guidance is there, page 238 of the DMG, actually way easier than in 4e because it's not a table per level.

I'm just saying that if you have, in the same group, a lvl 1 and a lvl 30, and you put a ladder to climb, you will be unable to set up a DC that makes sense.

Yes, so when a ladder is appropriate for your lvl 30 players, it's impossible to climb for a simple lvl 1 sailor. But it's still just a ladder.

That's because you are mostly thinking in terms of system. I don't, I just think about what it's like in the world, say, "it's easy" or "it's very hard", and then use the DC. Some day, you will understand that there are people who do not think about D&D only in terms of rules and probability.

First, I can't believe 'the castle is now full of DC40 ladders' is still being put out there! This has always been a nonsensical way to interpret the DC by level charts. But also even if that was the original intention (it wasn't), we have a better way to interpret it so why not use it!

Second, I find the by level DC tables of 4e and Pf2e much easier to do exactly what Lyxen is advocating for, because it fills in the missing information of "very hard" for who? "Easy" for who?

It's much easier for me in a fantasy game to "think what it's like in the world" using numbers that tell me hard but doable for a low level adventurer vs. a paragon adventurer vs. an epic adventurer. It's much smoother to match the fictional positioning of the heros to numbers that actually give you the kind of challenge you were expecting from your "mind's picture".

 

[Parmandur]

First, I can't believe 'the castle is now full of DC40 ladders' is still being put out there! This has always been a nonsensical way to interpret the DC by level charts. But also even if that was the original intention (it wasn't), we have a better way to interpret it so why not use it!

Second, I find the by level DC tables of 4e and Pf2e much easier to do exactly what Lyxen is advocating for, because it fills in the missing information of "very hard" for who? "Easy" for who?

It's much easier for me in a fantasy game to "think what it's like in the world" using numbers that tell me hard but doable for a low level adventurer vs. a paragon adventurer vs. an epic adventurer. It's much smoother to match the fictional positioning of the heros to numbers that actually give you the kind of challenge you were expecting from your "mind's picture".

I mean, having one sliding scale is quite straightforward.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I mean, having one sliding scale is quite straightforward.

It can be, but if the basis of the sliding scale is "common man" than a lot of fantasy things seem "Nearly Impossible".

Maybe just me but I can get my mind around Hard for level 5, Hard for level 10, Hard for level 15 heros (based on the fictional positioning of level X) a lot better than this fantasy thing is "Very Hard" for a common man or "Nearly Impossible".