PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Simplification True or False



Techonce
2007-08-23, 09:10 AM
Onee of the points that WotC made is that they are hoping to simplify rules and streamline combat.

I'm all for that, combat always seems to take too long and the fact that my group likes to kibitz doesn't help.

However, not a whole lot that WotC hs shown us really shows this. I realize that we are only seeing a little bit of the picture, but it's conflicting.

1. Weapon specific attacks. Their little piece on the the different types of fighters, seems to have different weapons having special attacks and tactical powers. I do not see this as simplifing the game. The spear can avoid some types of armor while the halbard can do these sorts of things. If a PC changes weapons, will it change his options or is it more along the lines of he can do special things with his primary and with the secondary he is limited to base attacks. Okay, unless you are the DM. It's just adding more rules and that never makes it simplier.

2. Combat sequence interrupts. The Dragon artical hints at this and peoples guessing seems to have differnet ideas on this. If this is executed well, then great, but if there are too many chances to change the initiative order, then it can get bogged down. (You interrupt his action and attack, but the gblin was expecting this and tries to grapple you, but now you get a chance to go at him first...)

3. Combat facing. The dragon artical seems to lean towards combat facing being back and well that's another thing that we'll have to see. Does facing affect spot checks and the like. Personally I like that players are 360degree aware. It stops the whole, but I was constantly looking around arguement.

4. 25 Spell levels. I personally have not read this article, so I won't comment much, but more is not simplifying.

5. Grapple rules. Yeah they need a bit of work. I have a player who has a grapple happy player, so I'm very familiar with the rules. They work, but they take a little bit of getting used to. Maybe there is somethign better, but it's not as bad as they make it out to be.

Well that's it off the top of my head. I think a little more information will help clear this up, but I'm remaining skeptical for now.

Jason

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 09:59 AM
However, not a whole lot that WotC hs shown us really shows this. I realize that we are only seeing a little bit of the picture, but it's conflicting.

Simplifying and streamlining were not WotC's only goals. There were a lot of other things they were trying to accomplish as well, like making fighters more fun to play. Most of the stuff you list falls into the "other things" category. They don't make things simpler, some may even make things a little more complex, but the return was deemed worth it for other reasons.


1. Weapon specific attacks. Their little piece on the the different types of fighters, seems to have different weapons having special attacks and tactical powers...

The way I read it, these are special maneuvers a la Tome of Battle. You don't get the armor-piercing shtick just for picking up a spear; you have to know the maneuver as well. Think of it as a special type of feat.

(Actually, given that Mike Mearls was involved, it's probably more like the weapon-specific feat chains in Iron Heroes. Which are a very cool system.)


2. Combat sequence interrupts. The Dragon artical hints at this and peoples guessing seems to have differnet ideas on this. If this is executed well, then great, but if there are too many chances to change the initiative order, then it can get bogged down. (You interrupt his action and attack, but the gblin was expecting this and tries to grapple you, but now you get a chance to go at him first...)

It looks as if that aspect runs off immediate actions, and you only get one immediate action per round, so no "I interrupt your interrupt of my interrupt of your action" chains. I think the goal here is to keep players engaged and attentive, since they'll get opportunities to act even on the opponent's turn.


3. Combat facing. The dragon artical seems to lean towards combat facing being back and well that's another thing that we'll have to see. Does facing affect spot checks and the like. Personally I like that players are 360degree aware. It stops the whole, but I was constantly looking around arguement.

There's nowhere near enough data to comment on this. The whole question is based on the observation that the rogue is trying to circle around for a sneak attack and the dragon uses its tail slap to shove the rogue away. That does not necessarily imply facing is involved, and it certainly doesn't say anything about how facing works if it is involved.


4. 25 Spell levels. I personally have not read this article, so I won't comment much, but more is not simplifying.

Nor is it necessarily making it more complex. It's just different. And it may well be that the goal of stretching out the spell levels to 25 was so they could say, "You can cast spells with level less than or equal to your caster level," which actually does simplify things a bit.


5. Grapple rules. Yeah they need a bit of work. I have a player who has a grapple happy player, so I'm very familiar with the rules. They work, but they take a little bit of getting used to. Maybe there is somethign better, but it's not as bad as they make it out to be.

The grapple rules are pretty bad. Check out the grapple thread to see the kind of arguments they spawn. I'm fairly familiar with them, but I still get a headache when I try to figure out how constriction works... it's at the point where I just try to avoid using constricting monsters as much as possible.

Now, as far as the actual simplifications go, we haven't seen a lot, but there are a few juicy hints. It looks as if iterative attacks have gone the way of the dodo, and the "Christmas tree" effect of piling five zillion buffs onto every PC before combat has been mostly eliminated. (Hopefully the "reverse Christmas tree" effect of piling five zillion debuffs onto every enemy will also go.) Grappling likewise is being fixed or removed.

Most of all, everyone who's played 4E combat comments on how fast it runs compared to 3E, which is enough to convince me that it has, in fact, been drastically slimmed down and smoothed out.

Fixer
2007-08-23, 10:00 AM
From reading what I have I believe there will be a greater amount of simplification.

From what I am interpreting (not actually reading) magic will be toned down considerably. Magical items will return to being assistance items instead of being required items (as they are under 3.5). Spells will not always be doing massive amounts of damage over a large area or have save-or-suck/die effects as common.

Arlanthe
2007-08-23, 11:03 AM
I, for one, hope "simplification" doesn't mean "sterilization" or "stupefication".

I like the manner in which skills provide synergy bonuses to other skills and abilities.

I like the existence of feats that can be used at random times, or affect a character when it wasn't planned.

I like a plethora of choices, a gamut of differences between my human figher and every other human fighter, and the option to customize to my hearts content.

I like that some level (read: some level) of cause-effect, action-reaction, and incident-consequence exists and is internally consistent. This includes attacks of opportunity, circumstance bonuses, and interesting decisions.

In the end, how much simpler can one get than rolling a D20 and adding a modifier, and/or moving a set amount each round? I mean, are we going to rock paper scissors to resolve combat, or is "simplification" a euphamism for making it easier to understand?

Someone bring me a crystal ball.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 11:19 AM
In the end, how much simpler can one get than rolling a D20 and adding a modifier, and/or moving a set amount each round? I mean, are we going to rock paper scissors to resolve combat, or is "simplification" a euphamism for making it easier to understand?

Well, hopefully we will get simpler than rolling three d20s, adding your normal modifier (which is different for each roll) and three buff/debuff modifiers to each result, rolling four d6s in two pairs, adding three modifiers to the result of each pair, realizing you forgot a bardic music bonus on the d20 rolls, going back and applying it, discovering that this means your third attack also hit, rolling another pair of d6s and adding the modifiers to those, announcing all the numbers resulting from the d6 rolls, waiting while the DM subtracts damage reduction, twiddling your thumbs while the DM rolls a d20 and adds three modifiers to see if the monster made its Fort save against the poison on your weapon, getting a soda from the fridge while the DM figures out what the effect of the poison will be on the monster's combat stats, and taking a 5-foot step.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 11:55 AM
The way I read it, these are special maneuvers a la Tome of Battle. You don't get the armor-piercing shtick just for picking up a spear; you have to know the maneuver as well. Think of it as a special type of feat.



I had deleted a few sentences where I thought that this was the way they weer going. I have only browsed through the Tome of Battle, but it did not overly apply to the Front line fighter in the group, so I did not read in depth.

Hearing reports that combat goes faster now, does make me feel better, although I can saw with a fair amount of confidence that I won't be playing 4th edition. OUr gaming group will probably not last the year. Darn kids being born and all (one of them mine)

My fear is that with more focus on online gaming and tools, that more complex rules might be on the way. A big concern I have is that they are hoping to open up the game to more people, but if the designers are mostly experts, they may not always get the new person perspective as much. I've delt with newer gamers and their questions. I'm just glad I don't have to explain THAC0!

Matthew
2007-08-23, 11:58 AM
I'm just glad I don't have to explain THAC0!

How it works or why it was used?

If the former, try this:

The score your Character needs to roll on 1D20 to hit his opponent is equal to:

his THAC0 - his target's Armour Class.

Add or subract any modifiers from the die roll.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:09 PM
Well, hopefully we will get simpler than rolling three d20s, adding your normal modifier (which is different for each roll) and three buff/debuff modifiers to each result, rolling four d6s in two pairs, adding three modifiers to the result of each pair, realizing you forgot a bardic music bonus on the d20 rolls, going back and applying it, discovering that this means your third attack also hit, rolling another pair of d6s and adding the modifiers to those, announcing all the numbers resulting from the d6 rolls, waiting while the DM subtracts damage reduction, twiddling your thumbs while the DM rolls a d20 and adds three modifiers to see if the monster made its Fort save against the poison on your weapon, getting a soda from the fridge while the DM figures out what the effect of the poison will be on the monster's combat stats, and taking a 5-foot step.

Kids today just want everything done for them! :smallbiggrin:

Techonce
2007-08-23, 12:15 PM
How it works or why it was used?

If the former, try this:

The score your Character needs to roll on 1D20 to hit his opponent is equal to:

his THAC0 - his target's Armour Class.

Add or subract any modifiers from the die roll.

I've used THAC0 and while it makes sense, it did tend to confuse some people. I'd rather show them a picture and explain why they are not flanking the enemy...

Matthew
2007-08-23, 12:21 PM
I've used THAC0 and while it makes sense, it did tend to confuse some people. I'd rather show them a picture and explain why they are not flanking the enemy...

Not exactly equivalents, though, are they? You still have to explain Flanking in 2e. Explaining the reason for using THAC0 is far more difficult than explaining how it is used, which is marginally more difficult than explaining BAB.

hamlet
2007-08-23, 12:49 PM
Not exactly equivalents, though, are they? You still have to explain Flanking in 2e. Explaining the reason for using THAC0 is far more difficult than explaining how it is used, which is marginally more difficult than explaining BAB.

I'm beginning to understand (after how many years now?) that it's that margin that is the sticking point. Can't understand it in three seconds? That's it then, give up and move on.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 01:09 PM
Actually the person in my group understands the flanking rules. Just forgets every session.

Unfortunatly said player is my wife so I can't get too angry.

Yakk
2007-08-23, 01:52 PM
The Weapon Specific Attacks looks like schools of specialization for a fighter.

A fighter with a longsword can use different abilities than a fighter with a longspear. A longsword fighter will learn different abilities -- if forced to pick up a longspear, they most likely won't have a bunch of new abilities.

Think of the abilities as spells -- even better, as sorcerer spells, chosen from a bounded and finite list of spells that the DM can read and know about before hand.

Fualkner Asiniti
2007-08-23, 02:06 PM
I say "yeah!" for more fun martial classes. I say "Woo hoo!" for more stratigic battles than "Finger of Death. DC 23. I win." Facing thought... That scares me. Facing is fun in stratigic video games, becuase you have sprites for that. I just draw a letter signifying a monster. Just like ADOM, yes. No facing, just simple letters. Facing would have me applying more modifiers, everyone would forget to say which way their character is facing, the list goes on...

4e is up in the air. The die has been cast, and no one knows how it will land.

Good luck.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-23, 02:35 PM
(Actually, given that Mike Mearls was involved, it's probably more like the weapon-specific feat chains in Iron Heroes. Which are a very cool system.)Mearls was Development Lead on ToB, you realize?

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 02:39 PM
Mearls was Development Lead on ToB, you realize?

Heh... no, must have missed that part.

Well, it'll be like one of the two. Or possibly both. :smallbiggrin:

Inane-Fedaykin
2007-08-23, 03:07 PM
Do people really find the rules that complicated? The only times I've come accross misunderstandings is when someone forgets the rule and tries to wing it and everyone thinks the guy knows what he's doing.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 03:27 PM
Do people really find the rules that complicated? The only times I've come accross misunderstandings is when someone forgets the rule and tries to wing it and everyone thinks the guy knows what he's doing.

For the most part, it's not that they're overly complicated, it's just that they take too much time and number-crunching to resolve.

Inane-Fedaykin
2007-08-23, 03:48 PM
You add applicable modifiers onto a roll of 20. I assume you're writing down most modifiers on your charecter sheet so really, all you're doing is adding and subtracting on the fly. Maybe it's because I'm younger so my mind is a bit quicker but honestly, I just don't get the problem.

Maybe 4e needs a chapter in the phb on basic math?

Green Bean
2007-08-23, 03:56 PM
You add applicable modifiers onto a roll of 20. I assume you're writing down most modifiers on your charecter sheet so really, all you're doing is adding and subtracting on the fly. Maybe it's because I'm younger so my mind is a bit quicker but honestly, I just don't get the problem.

Maybe 4e needs a chapter in the phb on basic math?

May I draw your attention to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54067) thread, which started out as a thread about how grapple rules are really simple when you get right down to it, then very quickly turned into a two page debate about how many attacks you get with a grapple. Clearly, not everyone shares your math skills. :smallwink:

kamikasei
2007-08-23, 04:06 PM
You add applicable modifiers onto a roll of 20. I assume you're writing down most modifiers on your charecter sheet so really, all you're doing is adding and subtracting on the fly. Maybe it's because I'm younger so my mind is a bit quicker but honestly, I just don't get the problem.

Keeping track of what effects granting what bonuses and what penalties are active during each individual round can become kind of a bookkeeping headache. This is on top of the large amount of rolling inherent in multiple attacks each round, where you have either a lot of time spent (serial) or a lot of dice to keep track of (parallel).


Maybe 4e needs a chapter in the phb on basic math?

Uncalled for.

Inane-Fedaykin
2007-08-23, 04:41 PM
Keeping track of what effects granting what bonuses and what penalties are active during each individual round can become kind of a bookkeeping headache. This is on top of the large amount of rolling inherent in multiple attacks each round, where you have either a lot of time spent (serial) or a lot of dice to keep track of (parallel).

Whenever you do something you're responsible for knowing how it works and keeping track of it. If you cast bless you need to keep in mind how long it lasts and let the group know. Now as for the bonuses, I'm assuming you're using your char sheet and writing down your regular addition to rolls (str+bab+misc+mag) for every attack roll you get. When someone casts a buff spell simply write down how much of a bonus you get (at higher levels you'd write down what type). Simply write things down and erase at the end of combat. the only times I've ever taken more then a few seconds for an attack is when I haven't bothered writing things down.


Uncalled for.
Maybe. But it's not directed at anyone and I really am clueless as to why people have trouble.

May I draw your attention to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54067) thread, which started out as a thread about how grapple rules are really simple when you get right down to it, then very quickly turned into a two page debate about how many attacks you get with a grapple. Clearly, not everyone shares your math skills. :smallwink:

The confusion largely stemmed from a FAQ that directly contradicted RAW. There is no math here, simply a crappy FAQ*.

*note that I didn't read page 3 at all, I was bored and I need to get ready for a game

Green Bean
2007-08-23, 04:51 PM
The confusion largely stemmed from a FAQ that directly contradicted RAW. There is no math here, simply a crappy FAQ*.

*note that I didn't read page 3 at all, I was bored and I need to get ready for a game

The problem with grappling isn't the basic mechanic. d20+bonuses is the same system used everywhere else in the game, and there's no real difference there. The issue is all of those things that don't involve rolling but instead involve a giant table of options and special rules specific to grappling. It can easily cause a game to grind to a halt, especially when compared to 'roll to hit, then damage'.

kamikasei
2007-08-23, 04:53 PM
Simply write things down and erase at the end of combat. the only times I've ever taken more then a few seconds for an attack is when I haven't bothered writing things down.

Yeah. That's more complexity, and requires more work, than most people are willing to deal with.

It doesn't have to be conceptually complex. It just has to involve keeping track of more things, and going through more steps, than the return is worth.

Ranis
2007-08-23, 06:45 PM
4. 25 Spell levels. I personally have not read this article, so I won't comment much, but more is not simplifying.

Don't you know? Wizards' idea of making it better is making it BIGGAR!

Numbers=broken

Numbers x 2=balanced!