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

[Jacob Lewis]

I can see how people might not like this paradigm, but don't understand the continued denial of the mindset / paradigm that makes the ruleset work best, like using the Level DC tables for Level appropriate challenges rather than "morphing locks" that turn into Epic level locks when you come back to your starting village, or towns full of Level DC 30 ladders.

Try looking at it this way:

Player 1 (level 30): "How difficult is it to climb this ladder?"

DM: "It's hard. The DC will be 30."

Player 2 (level 1): "Can I climb it?"

DM: "Sure, but it's still hard. The DC is 15 for you."

Numbers are not meant to be static in 4e. That is why scaling was designed to be easy, and player facing. The game assumes you're not going to have a group of character with more than a few levels apart.

Likewise, you can fight an ogre at level 8 and again at level 20. Keeping the same stats for the ogre at level 8 will not be a challenge for a party at level 20. But it is still an ogre. The game is simply designed to let you fight ogres any time rather than having them disappear because the player characters outgrew them.

 

[Oofta]

Try looking at it this way:

Player 1 (level 30): "How difficult is it to climb this ladder?"

DM: "It's hard. The DC will be 30."

Player 2 (level 1): "Can I climb it?"

DM: "Sure, but it's still hard. The DC is 15 for you."

Numbers are not meant to be static in 4e. That is why scaling was designed to be easy, and player facing. The game assumes you're not going to have a group of character with more than a few levels apart.

Likewise, you can fight an ogre at level 8 and again at level 20. Keeping the same stats for the ogre at level 8 will not be a challenge for a party at level 20. But it is still an ogre. The game is simply designed to let you fight ogres any time rather than having them disappear because the player characters outgrew them.

I prefer 5E's approach. That level 1 PC looking at the sheer wall in front of them? There's no way they can climb it, they'll have to find a way around. That ogre that's a threat at level 1? Well he just brought 50 of his buddies and if you're not careful they can all target you with spears and I'll be using mob attack rules.

I understand both approaches, but if the ladder just gets more difficult as you go up then there's not as much of a feeling of growth. It's just numbers inflation to me. It's an issue with some video games as well. They don't want to come up with new threats and mobs don't really work in video games so things just scale up based on your avatar's level.

There is no perfect solution of course, it's just a matter of preference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Two separate items. I'm not arguing a blanket "by level" tables are simpler or easier. They might be more complex but are easier for me to get the results I'm after (or at least as easy with better results), but I can see why it might not be that way for others.

The argument is that even if the "by level" tables caused trouble coming from a different paradigm, we've had years to figure out what they are good for so why are we still bringing up the worst possible interpretation of 4e elements? There's not even organized play or other externalities getting in the way these days. Use the perspective that makes things work the best and make sense! You don't have to enjoy that perspective or 4e, but I don't see the point of trying to argue that the game should be played or evaluated in the least charitable way if other interpretations exist.

"If you set the ladder at Level 30 DC it's impossible for the Level 1 person to climb"
"Don't use Level 30 DCs for mundane 10ft ladders. DC by level is meant to represent overcoming challenges appropriate to that level and Tier. The fiction should change to match this. A level 1 easy check ladder is always a level 1 easy check ladder, but you shouldn't enounter mudane 10ft ladders as challenges at Level 30. They become window dressing. No need to roll. If you call for a level 30 athletics check it should be an EPIC challenge -- say vaulting from a portal a mountain above the cosmic cube and landing next to it while dodging Level 29 angel guardians. 4e mechanics are meant to resolve around level challenges which match the fictional positioning of that level/tier, maybe -/+5 levels works. Outside of this you can just narrate success or telegraph failure. "
"No thanks. I want ladders that challenge both a Level 1 commoner and a Level 30 Demigod."


Or the Warlord shouting wounds closed argument:

"I don't like 4e because you have Warlords shouting wounds closed"
"Well, especially in 4e hit points represent a lot of different things. Think of hit points more like heroic stamina. Warlords are just refreshing some of that stamina to carry on."
"Nah, hit points are meat points only."

Or prone:

"How can you prone an ooze?"
"Well, it's a mechanic that represents a target having to recover before moving. Most of the time that can be represented as prone but sometimes you have to think of different fiction -- maybe the ooze is split and needs to take a moment to fuse back together before moving"
"But it's called prone so it should be prone."

Since 4e is “mechanics grounded”, can you always come up with an in fiction narrative that is satisfying? Maybe not, but I'd say it's rare not to be able to.

The work to "make it work" is not elaborate mechanical changes but rather just accepting the paradigm 4e operates in.

I can see how people might not like this paradigm, but don't understand the continued denial of the mindset / paradigm that makes the ruleset work best, like using the Level DC tables for Level appropriate challenges rather than "morphing locks" that turn into Epic level locks when you come back to your starting village, or towns full of Level DC 30 ladders.

I understand the paradigm. Ran a 4th ed game for over a year. But after a while, my players and I just started to hate it. Sure, you can come up with a piece of on-the-spot fiction to justify any mechanical result, but eventually, to us it became exhausting and disingenuous to keep doing so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That would be a pretty fun return to return to Castle Greyhawk idea...

To be fair, I do think there was a bunch of bad WotC modules that basically did just this. It still wasn't the SAME ladder or lock or door or whatever, but they just upped the material, etc. to justify the higher DCs. It is not the best / most interesting way to shift fictional positioning. Hah, you must now navigate this PRIMORDIAL FOOD PANTRY WITH PRIMORDIAL RATS!

I actually don't blame the confusion in the begining as even half the staff didn't seem to know exactly what they created. But come on, it's 15 years later now...

Sadly, it is often true that once you have rejected something, you're not likely to come back even if they fix it or explain themselves better later. You only get one chance to make a first impression.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I prefer 5E's approach. That level 1 PC looking at the sheer wall in front of them? There's no way they can climb it, they'll have to find a way around. That ogre that's a threat at level 1? Well he just brought 50 of his buddies and if you're not careful they can all target you with spears and I'll be using mob attack rules.

I understand both approaches, but if the ladder just gets more difficult as you go up then there's not as much of a feeling of growth. It's just numbers inflation to me. It's an issue with some video games as well. They don't want to come up with new threats and mobs don't really work in video games so things just scale up based on your avatar's level.

There is no perfect solution of course, it's just a matter of preference.

But that's perfectly doable in 4E. Like, by all accounts 4E doesn't operate under the Skyrim idea of "Everything slides in difficulty as you level up", but rather that you are supposed to be finding harder and harder challenges. That's the whole joke about DC30 Ladders and why it's such a dumb critique: they only exist on message boards.

What is nice about the 4E approach is that when I create the world, I can accurate judge what sort of challenges players will likely encounter by level and thus can tell them with some degree of accuracy how hard a certain action may or may not be, rather than making a guess as to how hard they might consider it. A DC30 wall will always be a DC30 wall, but I as the GM will know how much of a challenge that will be for the players at 1st level or 7th level or 18th level. It helps me prepare, so that I know they are likely to do something or that they are unlikely to do something, so I can plan around it.

 

[Garthanos]

But that's perfectly doable in 4E. Like, by all accounts 4E doesn't operate under the Skyrim idea of "Everything slides in difficulty as you level up", but rather that you are supposed to be finding harder and harder challenges. That's the whole joke about DC30 Ladders and why it's such a dumb critique: they only exist on message boards.

What is nice about the 4E approach is that when I create the world, I can accurate judge what sort of challenges players will likely encounter by level and thus can tell them with some degree of accuracy how hard a certain action may or may not be, rather than making a guess as to how hard they might consider it. A DC30 wall will always be a DC30 wall, but I as the GM will know how much of a challenge that will be for the players at 1st level or 7th level or 18th level. It helps me prepare, so that I know they are likely to do something or that they are unlikely to do something, so I can plan around it.

This.... and its not just a joke its a bad tacky inaccurate one part of the entire edition war bollux.

 

[Oofta]

But that's perfectly doable in 4E. Like, by all accounts 4E doesn't operate under the Skyrim idea of "Everything slides in difficulty as you level up", but rather that you are supposed to be finding harder and harder challenges. That's the whole joke about DC30 Ladders and why it's such a dumb critique: they only exist on message boards.

What is nice about the 4E approach is that when I create the world, I can accurate judge what sort of challenges players will likely encounter by level and thus can tell them with some degree of accuracy how hard a certain action may or may not be, rather than making a guess as to how hard they might consider it. A DC30 wall will always be a DC30 wall, but I as the GM will know how much of a challenge that will be for the players at 1st level or 7th level or 18th level. It helps me prepare, so that I know they are likely to do something or that they are unlikely to do something, so I can plan around it.

Well, 4E was more constrained and prescriptive of power levels. The assumption that you would have a +X weapon at level N and so on. What I was talking about is that in 5E I can set up a cliff that the group encounters at level 1 that they have no chance of climbing and must find a way around. At higher levels they can climb the cliff with little difficulty. At level 1 that ogre is a major threat at level 10 a single ogre would be a speed bump. But a dozen ogres facing that level 10 party? Now you have a fight on your hands*.

In 4E that ogre is still going to be a threat but at level 10 it's going to be the new and improved ogre because a dozen ogres wouldn't stand a chance. Throwing relatively low level monsters against a group at higher level can give them more of a sense of accomplishment, a "Remember back when 1 of those would have been tough? We just took out a dozen!"

*Unless of course they show up in fireball formation when the group has a 5 minute work day. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, 4E was more constrained and prescriptive of power levels. The assumption that you would have a +X weapon at level N and so on. What I was talking about is that in 5E I can set up a cliff that the group encounters at level 1 that they have no chance of climbing and must find a way around. At higher levels they can climb the cliff with little difficulty. At level 1 that ogre is a major threat at level 10 a single ogre would be a speed bump. But a dozen ogres facing that level 10 party? Now you have a fight on your hands*.

In 4E that ogre is still going to be a threat but at level 10 it's going to be the new and improved ogre because a dozen ogres wouldn't stand a chance. Throwing relatively low level monsters against a group at higher level can give them more of a sense of accomplishment, a "Remember back when 1 of those would have been tough? We just took out a dozen!"

*Unless of course they show up in fireball formation when the group has a 5 minute work day. Nothing is perfect.

That's not what I get from reading the MM. It's not a "New and improved Ogre", but an Ogre Veteran or an Ogre Chieftain that becomes the challenge, while you also have a template for Ogre minions rather ones with lots of hitpoints that you saw at lower levels. What's happened is not sliding the difficulty of the monster, but rather that you are moving up the monster food chain to something bigger because you have become that much more powerful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not what I get from reading the MM. It's not a "New and improved Ogre", but an Ogre Veteran or an Ogre Chieftain that becomes the challenge, while you also have a template for Ogre minions rather ones with lots of hitpoints that you saw at lower levels. What's happened is not sliding the difficulty of the monster, but rather that you are moving up the monster food chain to something bigger because you have become that much more powerful.

Yeah, that was another thing that bothered us. We liked the objectivity (shared by every other edition) that meant any given creature was represented mechanically the same way, no matter when you met them. That statblocks were based as much on who was facing them as much as by who they were really rubbed us the wrong way.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, that was another thing that bothered us. We liked the objectivity (shared by every other edition) that meant any given creature was represented mechanically the same way, no matter when you met them. That statblocks were based as much on who was facing them as much as by who they were really rubbed us the wrong way.

I guess I can get that, but at the same time I think it's an effective way to actually make it so you don't get overly bogged down by lower level enemies and can feel like high-powered heroes. A style choice, but it's one I can get behind.