PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Just what is this thing? (4e Combat)



CarpeGuitarrem
2008-07-25, 06:50 PM
Okay, I apologize for this very late and very classic 4e thread...but in all the talk of 4e, what with the comparing it to an MMO and everything, I'm not quite sure that this particular aspect of it has come out. It deals with the combat system, first and foremost; I won't be addressing anything else in 4e, for simplicity's sake, and because I haven't seen that stuff in action. So here's the deal.

People say that D&D is becoming an MMO. I've seen the arguments, I really don't think they hold that much merit. People say that D&D is becoming a boardgame. Well, that's closer to the mark, IMO (and interestingly enough hearkens a return to its roots as a tactical wargame with a druid who zapped elephants with his magic box), but not quite there. No, indeed. This is an observation that my part-time DM buddy pointed out to me. Out of anything else, the combat system in 4e resembles...a trading card game.

Okay, wipe that sour taste out of your mouth, because I'm pretty sure that you thought immediately of Yu-Gi-Oh!. Trust me, that's not what I meant. And I really don't think that it's that big of a deal. I'll explain why. But first, of course, I need to go over just why I believe this idea. Let's start with...

"Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence."

That's a little something from the popular trading card game Magic: The Gathering. They call it "The Golden Rule of Magic". It's a rule that has since found its way into most trading card games. It's one of their central principles. You build a few general rules, and then you use individual cards to twist and poke them a bit. Funny...that just reminded me of a couple of passages from D&D...

"Simple Rules, Many Exceptions: Every class, race, feat, power, and monster in the D&D game lets you break the rules in some way. ... All these game elements are little ways of breaking the rules--and most of the books published for the D&D game are full of these game elements." (4e PHB, P. 11)

"Specific Beats General: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." (Ibid)

So. The first one rather resembles it. And then you get to "Specific Beats General". It's essentially identical to the Golden Rule of Magic. Small surprise there, considering that both Magic and D&D are published by WOTC. It rather works, so they decided to transplant the concept to 4e.

Going from this, they completely revamped the combat system, in the style of later splatbooks such as the Tome of Battle. That's probably why I thought the Tome, when I first looked through it, was so cool. All of the maneuvers reminded me of something that might've been printed on a trading card, in a game.

And then comes 4e, making a total conversion. And you know what? The powers read almost entirely like different cards in a base set for D&D: the TCG. Just...a slightly more complicated TCG, but a TCG nonetheless. A TCG that uses a battlegrid and miniatures. And more stats than a normal TCG. The only major difference is that instead of paying to play a "card", you're limited by the rules as to when you can play it, either once a day or once an encounter.

A good thing? I think so. The reason why trading card games are so fun (IMO) isn't because they have uber-powerful cards. It's because they have so many different cards, and allow you to customize your strategy in many different ways. You have cool little cards that you like to pull out and use, and they have fluff! You aren't just increasing the archery that you throw at an opponent, you're watching Legolas nock two arrows on his bowstring and fire them off. You didn't just equip your character with an enhancing weapon, you've given Luke his lightsaber. You didn't just reduce the devastation of an opponent's attack, your creature dodged it with uncanny agility. You get the point.

Same thing goes for the powers. Instead of "attack with my melee weapon", "shoot the monster", "cast a spell on the monster", you have options. Even your basic attacks have essentially been replaced by At-Will powers. You get flavor even without the enhancements you get while leveling up! So yes, I think this is a very good step for combat in D&D to take. Simulation is boring, and one of the most exciting things you can do with it is to munchkin or min-max. Either that, or stick roleplaying into it. In other words, combat is so inherently uninteresting that you have to spice it up yourself. 4e and TCGs, on the other hand, are able to introduce flavor and variety into combat itself, which you can then graft RP into, if you wish. But no matter what, your PC is doing some pretty cool stuff, from Level 1.

After all, I think Sly Flourish is a pretty fun move to visualize my character pulling.

And like I mentioned, WOTC has plenty of experience in the TCG genre. It ruttin' invented the gorram thing! So yeah, no sweat. They have this handled. The only major problem they've run into is broken combos. Well, those are rather easy to fix in D&D. It's called "quality time with the DM". Problem solved.:smallbiggrin:

So, yes. Is 4e combat different from anything we've seen? Yes. Is this a good think. Heck yeah. It's right shiny, Cap'n, and it's definitely got my attention.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-07-25, 07:44 PM
Hmm. That's pretty profound. Or at least insightful.
...

Eh... nougat?

aaron_the_cow
2008-07-25, 07:53 PM
Thats funny becuse I got the oposit vibe from 4e. Not in it the card game, but in that being a good thing.
It seemed to me that the extra powers give you better ways to min-max and not rollplay, but (taking from Yu-Gi-Oh) have an ultimate monster who uses its special effect to rule the battle field and replace any need for rollplaying or anything else.

erikun
2008-07-25, 07:59 PM
I would actually be very, very suprised if this was the first time people have noticed it. Looking through the lists of powers and status effects, Magic: the Gathering instantly came to mind. Range 5, 2[W]+Dex, slowed until end of your next turn? That's almost identical to Magic-speak, there.

I think part of the reason that we haven't heard much about it before is that it works so well. We don't have a dozen different ice spells that cause slippery floors at a dozen different DCs; you have one set "hazardous terrain" that does it for all of them. Mind you, some people have claimed that status effects are part of the "just like a MMO" problem. I think having a set of defined abilities is very useful; it gives you an idea of what you're encountering, and makes designing powers that much simplier.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-07-25, 07:59 PM
Thats funny becuse I got the oposit vibe from 4e. Not in it the card game, but in that being a good thing.
It seemed to me that the extra powers give you better ways to min-max and not rollplay, but (taking from Yu-Gi-Oh) have an ultimate monster who uses its special effect to rule the battle field and replace any need for rollplaying or anything else.
Hmm. From what I see, and what I've heard, the classes still fill different roles, so that you can't possibly be all-powerful. That, and at higher levels, the monsters are also supposed to be increasingly powerful, so that you have to have power to counter them. Within that paradigm, you have the powers.

I could be mistaken, but this is the general feel I've been getting.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-25, 08:10 PM
Thats funny becuse I got the oposit vibe from 4e. Not in it the card game, but in that being a good thing.
It seemed to me that the extra powers give you better ways to min-max and not rollplay, but (taking from Yu-Gi-Oh) have an ultimate monster who uses its special effect to rule the battle field and replace any need for rollplaying or anything else.

4E is far, far worse for min-maxing than 3E.

aaron_the_cow
2008-07-25, 08:11 PM
Hmm. From what I see, and what I've heard, the classes still fill different roles, so that you can't possibly be all-powerful. That, and at higher levels, the monsters are also supposed to be increasingly powerful, so that you have to have power to counter them. Within that paradigm, you have the powers.

I could be mistaken, but this is the general feel I've been getting.

any system, no matter how broken can be played so that it is a good system as far as putting up harder monsters and good roll playing. but I find it to be like the video game Baldur's Gate in that it has a system for you to buy serten skills that let you become the ultimate figting mechine and kill all the baddies with one swing of your sword.

John Campbell
2008-07-25, 08:15 PM
I agree entirely with everything that CarpeGuitarrem said in the OP... except for one thing. I don't see turning D&D into M:tG with splatbooks instead of booster packs as a good thing. If I want M:tG, I know where to find it. Since I'm not playing it, it should be clear that it's not what I want. I'm an RPGer, not a CCGer.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-25, 08:19 PM
I agree entirely with everything that CarpeGuitarrem said in the OP... except for one thing. I don't see turning D&D into M:tG with splatbooks instead of booster packs as a good thing. If I want M:tG, I know where to find it. Since I'm not playing it, it should be clear that it's not what I want. I'm an RPGer, not a CCGer.

If what you're getting out of the OP is "4E is just like Magic the Gathering", you didn't read it very carefully.

You don't have to be an RPGer to think that clear formatting is a good thing.

arguskos
2008-07-25, 08:23 PM
I agree with you, CarpeGuitarrem, about 4ed looking like a CCG. While I don't think it's a good way to take the game, neither can I say it's a bad one. It's just a different interpretation of what D&D can be. *shrug* It's like cheese, brie or other soft cheeses in particular. Brie is neither good nor bad on it's own, but some people HATE it (like me), and some people LOVE it (like my girlfriend). All a matter of taste.

-argus

Draco Dracul
2008-07-25, 09:58 PM
TCG is a much better fit than an MMO. Not a perfect comparison, but deffinately not a total ***pull.

wodan46
2008-07-25, 10:38 PM
As a former Magic Card player, I immediately noticed that Powers are written in a way that strongly resembles Magic cards.

Comparison of Powers to Magic Cards:

Name, Class, Level------------------Name, Mana Color/Cost
Description-------------------------Picture
Power Type, subtype keywords------Card Type, subtype
Effects-----------------------------Effects
------------------------------------Flavor Text

EvilElitest
2008-07-25, 10:46 PM
4E is far, far worse for min-maxing than 3E.

And does this by sacrificing options and bringing about Limitations, and yet another case of the cure being worst than the illness. I prefer 3E's flawed attempts than 4Es shallow fixes. but I digress, a better response would be pointing out that in terms of motive behind power gaming, 4E is better (IE, the feeling of power and control and being "Dah Badass" without any real earning it). But yet again, i digress


OP, in terms of combat, i suppose you could say that 4E is like a trading card game, but i think 4E is more forces on balence. Most trading card games, magic being an example, tend to be only vaguely balanced, and while something might be balenced within one deck, it is not when compared to all the cards as a whole. Through 4E is young, so we will see
from
EE

Covered In Bees
2008-07-25, 10:54 PM
And does this by sacrificing options and bringing about Limitations, and yet another case of the cure being worst than the illness. I prefer 3E's flawed attempts than 4Es shallow fixes. but I digress, a better response would be pointing out that in terms of motive behind power gaming, 4E is better (IE, the feeling of power and control and being "Dah Badass" without any real earning it). But yet again, i digress
3E core doesn't have nearly as many actual options as you seem to think it does.
In terms of the motive behind powergaming, 4E isn't better, since 3E characters don't "earn it" either, and wind up being far more powerful than 4E characters.
4E characters are not some kind of super-badasses that can't be stopped; you're thinking of characters from Exalted.
So, no. 4E is not better for powergamers in any way, shape, or form; pretending it is just reveals your enormous bias.

Powergaming is about making a character who is mechanically more effective than the norm or as effective as possible, not having a system that makes you "feel like a badass". A game in which the characters are deities or the equivalent, like Nobilis, is not the same as one in which powergamers thrive--there's very few ways to powergame in Nobilis; it's a very rules-light system.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-25, 11:04 PM
It seemed to me that the extra powers give you better ways to min-max and not rollplay, but (taking from Yu-Gi-Oh) have an ultimate monster who uses its special effect to rule the battle field and replace any need for rollplaying or anything else.

Stormwind Fallacy would like to have a word with you, dood.

wodan46
2008-07-25, 11:08 PM
Its pretty hard to minmax. The number of broken mechanics in 4e can be counted on your hands. Attempting to minmax your character in 4e typically means crippling overspecialization. You can go for a 20 in your primary stat, which will grant you better attacks and damage, but will make your other defenses weak, as well as crippling your secondary effects and overall options.

However, that does not mean that characters are deprived of variety. Unless you mean by variety giving spellcasters a vast supply of abilities that can be used for each and every situation, often with save or die effects, while non-spellcasters get... more hp.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-25, 11:10 PM
Its pretty hard to minmax. The number of broken mechanics in 4e can be counted on your hands.

However, that does not mean that characters are deprived of variety. Unless you mean by variety giving spellcasters a vast supply of abilities that can be used for each and every situation, often with save or die effects, while non-spellcasters get... more hp.

Come, now. Power Attack on its own is 20 different options (how much to Power Attack for).

(Yes, I've really heard that argument used seriously.)

Tengu_temp
2008-07-25, 11:31 PM
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/seto2.PNG

Covered In Bees
2008-07-25, 11:34 PM
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/seto2.PNG
Sheer genius.

Pirate_King
2008-07-26, 12:57 AM
insightful, yes, but isn't that the way things have always worked, in a way?

A character does 1d3 damage, unless he's a monk or armed with something that does more than that. A small character only moves 20 feet unless he has boots of speed. Special abilities, magic spells and items, class features, they've always been ways to "break" the basic rules. not really a new thing, just recently explained more directly.

Viruzzo
2008-07-26, 02:21 AM
However, that does not mean that characters are deprived of variety. Unless you mean by variety giving spellcasters a vast supply of abilities that can be used for each and every situation, often with save or die effects, while non-spellcasters get... more hp.
Also I don't get why people think that having n-thousands multiclassing has something to do with you character's depth or your fun playing the game. Is it just some min/maxing complaining disguised as a need of roleplaying options?
I have mostly played 2e and multiclassing was not an option, and still we had no problems with versatility or all the stuff that 3e is claimed to be the only bearer of.


A character does 1d3 damage, unless he's a monk or armed with something that does more than that. A small character only moves 20 feet unless he has boots of speed. Special abilities, magic spells and items, class features, they've always been ways to "break" the basic rules. not really a new thing, just recently explained more directly.
These are not "breaking the rules" effects: jumping more is still jumping, using the same basic rules and calculations; the amount of space you can jump is a variable in the rule, but the mechanic is the same. On the other hand, abilities that break the rules would for example allow you to fly where you normally could have only jumped.

Titanium Dragon
2008-07-26, 05:33 AM
This has more to do with rules system basis than any real resemblence. While it is true that D&D and CCGs like Magic are rule-breaking exceptions-based games, this is largely because that's the sort of rules sets are necessary for such things rather than any inherent similarity between the two.

namo
2008-07-26, 05:48 AM
4E is far, far worse for min-maxing than 3E.

I disagree. Unlike powergaming, min-maxing is about making characters that can contribute adequately given a set of constraints. Whether or not one likes 4E, one has to recognize that it offers easier min-maxing than 3E. The field of possibilities is narrow still - but splatbooks are on the way, of course.

I know not everybody agrees with that definition of min-maxing but... well, it's a shame.


Simulation is boring, and one of the most exciting things you can do with it is to munchkin or min-max.
How does simulation encourage munchkinism ??

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-07-26, 02:28 PM
How does simulation encourage munchkinism ??
Simulation is essentially a numbers game. In simulation, everything boils down to numbers. When everything boils down to numbers, the most interesting thing you can do is to improve the effectiveness of those numbers, and make the largest output possible, which is what munchkins do, through exploiting the rules.

Titanium Dragon: The other big similarity is the existence of specific rule-breaking things, which are customizable. In addition, these rule-breaking things generally also do little cool things on the side, like the shifting abilities of the rogue.

AslanCross
2008-07-26, 05:46 PM
As a former Magic Card player, I immediately noticed that Powers are written in a way that strongly resembles Magic cards.

Comparison of Powers to Magic Cards:

Name, Class, Level------------------Name, Mana Color/Cost
Description-------------------------Picture
Power Type, subtype keywords------Card Type, subtype
Effects-----------------------------Effects
------------------------------------Flavor Text

I did notice the similarity. You could even photocopy the PHB pages and cut out the power descriptions.

Admittedly this is not something totally new. Back in 3.5, Wizards came out with a Web Enhancement for Tome of Battle that was similar to this. The intention was that it's easier to keep track of maneuvers with physical cards rather than just ticking them off a list like a Wizard would do with his spells.

The "CCG feel" is even more obvious in the Monster Manual, since you have an entire monster wrapped up in a little box. Of course, some monsters have many more abilities and powers and don't fit quite as well. The lower-level ones do, though.

I'm just glad we don't have randomly-assorted "Power Boosters" that we need to boost our characters. :P

Helgraf
2008-07-26, 06:04 PM
4E is far, far worse for min-maxing than 3E.

As in it's a lot harder to min-max the system into a Punpun or as in it's far more rampant?

ericgrau
2008-07-26, 06:10 PM
I agree and would recommend 4e to others who like that style of game, and yet that's exactly what I don't like about 4e. I'm also slapping myself on the forehead for not realizing where WotC got the inspiration. 4e is "gamey" b/c WotC makes games. Of course!

IMO simulation doesn't cause more munchkinism. Lots of options, complicated rules that can be "reinterpreted" and splatbooks for even more options to combine things in unintended ways encourages munchkinism. 4e is less open to munchkinism because it's simpler and has a more rigid structure. 3.5e has more options, and that can (and does) lead to munchkinism. Maybe making it open ended is part of the simulation style, then I could see simulation leading to munchkinism. It's not direct. Regardless, like others, it hasn't been a problem in games I've been in simply b/c the groups didn't want it.

Charity
2008-07-26, 06:50 PM
As in it's a lot harder to min-max the system into a Punpun or as in it's far more rampant?

The former.

wodan46
2008-07-26, 07:35 PM
You can't build pun-pun anymore. Cloud Chariot and Seal of Binding are the most inbalanced spells currently around, the former lets you ride around in a invincible flying chariot that gives you cover, the latter causes you to completely disable an enemy continuously while the attack cause irreducible damage until you are bloodied, which with the Demi-God Regeneration means the full 5 minutes, causing 100d10+Wis*50 damage.

The most pun-punish ability is that of the level 30 Archmage who can convert a daily (1 per day) into an encounter (1 per 5 minutes), though you only get 1 daily with which you can do this with. However, you can do things like the aforementioned Cloud Chariot and Seal of Binding, a Paladin power that lets you rez someone at the cost of half your health, and Mordie's Magnificent Mansion, which gives you an extradimensional hiding place long enough to take an extended rest. Or you could just take Mass flight and grant your party the ability to fly forever.

So yes, a party of level 30 Archmages can break the game. However, the really broken tricks don't become available until level 30 exactly, by which you are a level away from ascending to a higher plane of existence.

Andras
2008-07-26, 10:30 PM
You can't build pun-pun anymore.

Yet. I'm sure when all is said and done and loads of splatbooks are released that some abilities will interface with each other in some way that Wizards didn't intend.

wodan46
2008-07-27, 09:34 AM
Except that they will all be expensive rituals that require you to be at epic skill levels to cast, are very difficult to attain, and may simply not exist at all. Not to mention taking hours and days to cast.

Viruzzo
2008-07-27, 09:54 AM
Yet. I'm sure when all is said and done and loads of splatbooks are released that some abilities will interface with each other in some way that Wizards didn't intend.
You cant' really give responsibility for brokenness from splatbooks to WotC, if some random publisher writes some broken stuff like the one Pun Pun is based on, core itself is still just fine.