Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mandroidempath Aug 29, 2008 22:13:36	I adopted 4th edition with some friends who had roleplayed a lot before but had never really tried D&D. We're happy with the system as a whole, but have a couple gripes. 1. Combat is too sticky It seems that each fight consists of the party and whatever enemies I throw at them charging across the map and then attacking until one side falls down. There is a fair amount of shifting for flanks and whatnot, but combat is generally very static. 2. Combat gets really boring in the late rounds This may be a problem with how I pace the campaign, but it usually only makes sense that there is one fight every few days, because of this almost all combats begin with the party using action points and blowing encounters/dailies and then just cleaning up with at-wills. This keeps combat pretty quick but takes almost all of the drama out of the combat. Also, when the dice gods are angry combat drones on and on as players on both sides of the encounter swap basic attacks. I've come up with some house rules that have helped and I thought I would share my experience and ask for help troubleshooting them. 1. Change flanking so that it is an a boolean condition. ie. If A is an enemy and B,C,and D are adventurers B A D C B,C and D would all have combat advantage 2. Moving from a threatened square into an unthreatened square does not provoke an attack of opportunity. (fighters are an exception) 3. If you attack while flanked you provoke an attack of opportunity from each enemy flanking you that you do not attack. (interrupts and opportunity attacks excepted) 4. Remove shifting except when granted through powers These four rules have made my combats much more mobile as there is no penalty to disengage and a serious deterrent to continue fighting while surrounded. The removal of the basic shift is more of a flavor rule as it prevents players from making interesting defensive formations that aren't just a solid blob. regarding the tendency to nova and then run out of "hero gas" towards the end of the encounter I have a more drastic house rule. basically I removed the entire at-will, encounter, daily system and replaced it with a point based system that I am tentatively calling "hero points". At the beginning of each combat all players start with ten "hero points", at the beginning of each player's turn they roll a d20 and gain that many points. They then spend these points to use their abilities. My current pricing policy is as follows. Basic Attack: 0 points At-will Power / Special Attack (charge, grab, etc.): 2 points Encounter utility power:10 Encounter attack power: 20 Daily utility power: 25 Daily attack power: 50 powers that don't fit well such as stances and the sustainable wizard dailies are generally half as much to activate and also bleed 5-10 points at the beginning of each turn. So, if any of you who managed to read all the way through that are still reading, I'd love to hear your opinions. Thanks.
#2 dogbackward Aug 30, 2008 0:51:13	I'd have to test the movement changes to see how they work, I suppose. As for the Hero points, though... it's a bit complicated. Not that complicated, really, but enough that it doesn't seem to "fit" with 4e. I've been toying with a similar idea, using Combat Points. Hitting with a basic or at-will attack, or being missed by an encounter or recharge attack all give you 1 CP. This represents setting yourself up for the shot, using your opponent's miss to unbalance them, and so on. Then, each use of a power costs; Racial Power; 1 CP Encounter Utility Power; 1 CP Encounter Item Power; 1 CP Encounter Attack Power; 2 CP Daily Utility Power; 2 CP Daily Item Power; 2 CP Daily Attack Power; 3 CP I just use little tokens (those glass beads you find bloody everywhere work perfect) for CP, handing them to a player when they gain CP, and taking them back when they use CP. It keeps people from using their big stuff right away, and allows them to get that feeling of "building up" to the climax of an encounter. I also allow them to spend up to 1 CP per tier to add +2 per CP spent to a single d20 or damage roll, which means they still have a good use after they've used up all their encounter and daily stuff, or don't want to waste them when they're not sure if it's the last battle or not. It also gives the feel of the older version of Action Points. I haven't done it yet, but using them to allow "trip" and "disarm" style attacks (at 1-2 CP) would also work, while still keeping it from being the "every turn" tactic it usually is in 3e. I just think that keeping track of 5's, 10's, 25's and 1d20's of points might slow things down a bit, is all.
#3 Tony_Vargas Aug 30, 2008 1:34:21	Wow, you think 4e combats are static and tend to go nova - you can't have ever played 3e. The two are like night and day, 4e took long strides away from the very things you're complaining about. 2. Combat gets really boring in the late rounds This may be a problem with how I pace the campaign, but it usually only makes sense that there is one fight every few days, because of this almost all combats begin with the party using action points and blowing encounters/dailies and then just cleaning up with at-wills. This keeps combat pretty quick but takes almost all of the drama out of the combat. Also, when the dice gods are angry combat drones on and on as players on both sides of the encounter swap basic attacks. Yes, that's a pacing problem, but it's easily solved: just adjust the definition of 'day.' A 'day' could be 2-4 milestones, for instance. You set a 'plot point' and when the party reaches it, they get to start a new 'day,' until then, they run on whatever dailies and surges they have left. 1. Change flanking so that it is an a boolean condition. 3. If you attack while flanked you provoke an attack of opportunity from each enemy flanking you that you do not attack. (interrupts and opportunity attacks excepted) There are a lot of powers that remove or reduce the ability to move. With these changes, those powers are much stronger. A few zombies, for instance, can flank a character, one or two grab him, and he's had it. And that's a week imobilization. Ghouls and carrion crawlers will eat PCs alive (litterally). These four rules have made my combats much more mobile as there is no penalty to disengage and a serious deterrent to continue fighting while surrounded. The removal of the basic shift is more of a flavor rule as it prevents players from making interesting defensive formations that aren't just a solid blob. That's be more mobile, all right, once you're flanked it's better to run like heck and eat 2 or more OAs (with flanking bonuses) than to eat those OAs every round. Problem is, you can't always disengage - and, if you're a fighter, you're not supposed to, the fighter's vaunted 'stickiness' becomes a noble form of suicide. I can see, though, how your play style may have worked with these rules. You have one combat a 'day,' so there's no resource management, and all the big guns can come out in every fight. Basically, you've made things too easy via pacing, and to make up for it, made them too hard, again. It evens out. basically I removed the entire at-will, encounter, daily system and replaced it with a point based system that I am tentatively calling "hero points". That looks like a very complex way to put a limmit something like the monsters' 'recharge' on the players. Rather than simply decide when to use a power of limitted availability, the power becomes available later in the encounter, if you stick to 'low-cost' powers early on. That's not a bad result at all - it makes sense to feel out the enemy without expending limitted resources, at first, then wait for the best moment to pull out something more special - but it's arrived at in a more random way.
#4 Saric Aug 30, 2008 2:22:54	1. Combat is too sticky It seems that each fight consists of the party and whatever enemies I throw at them charging across the map and then attacking until one side falls down. There is a fair amount of shifting for flanks and whatnot, but combat is generally very static. Perhaps you should try putting more skirmisher and ranged opponents in a fight. A mobile archer can rain down hell upon a party effectively dividing them should he move into advantageous terrain. If you just put brutes and soldiers, its pretty much always going to be a slugfest. Also, intelligent monsters might only move into fight the pc's temporarily, and then make a tactical retreat, goading the pc's to follow and fall into a trap. Or since all monsters have at least 1 healing surge, have the monsters fight till 1/4th of their hp is gone, and retreat rest up 5 minutes and attack the pc's again. 2. Combat gets really boring in the late rounds This may be a problem with how I pace the campaign, but it usually only makes sense that there is one fight every few days, because of this almost all combats begin with the party using action points and blowing encounters/dailies and then just cleaning up with at-wills. This keeps combat pretty quick but takes almost all of the drama out of the combat. Also, when the dice gods are angry combat drones on and on as players on both sides of the encounter swap basic attacks. Perhaps you should have a 1 or more fights if you want them not to go nova all the time. Also If you're only having 1 fight a day, that might make sense out in the wilderness or when you're running around town, but maybe a good dungeon crawl might be in order. Having a dungeon or populated site gives a good reason to have multiple monsters in an area ready to beat down on your pc's which makes them usually think twice about going "nova." 1. Change flanking so that it is an a boolean condition. Unsure about that, doesn't seem too unbalanced but I haven't tried it out. 2. Moving from a threatened square into an unthreatened square does not provoke an attack of opportunity. (fighters are an exception) Threatened squares doesn't really exist in 4th edition. This actually will slow down the combat even more. Right now the balancing factor of moving is that if you do it you take an opportunity attack = more damage = faster fight. Perhaps you should rethink how you run your monsters. While an intelligent or tactical opponent might shift and then move, dumb monsters should provoke the opportunity attack to attack an opponent of their choice. You could also run it by alignment. Chaotic opponents go for the glory, taking risky moves to take out the most threatening opponent which most likely will not be the guy in full plate behind a large shield. A lawful opponent works in tandem with his allies to move his opponents into a dire predicament. 3. If you attack while flanked you provoke an attack of opportunity from each enemy flanking you that you do not attack. (interrupts and opportunity attacks excepted) I'm unsure what to say about this. While it might quicken up a fight, it actually seems more detrimental to the pc's. Since the typical encounter philosophy of 4th edition comprises of 1 monster of equivalent level / pc, the pc's will typically be outnumbered and an average party will have their defender in the front who will take more opportunity attacks than he has to because you decided to remove shifting. Also if the defender is outnumbered he will most likely be flanked most of the time which equates to him taking even more damage for doing his role. Your suggestion of flanking also makes it even easier for monsters to flank. And if you hadn't noticed, monsters have lots of hp compared to the pc's, and due to your suggested changes in the rules, will make it quite easier for the pc's to get smacked down and out of a fight quicker. 4. Remove shifting except when granted through powers Why? Shifting is the careful step back, not exposing your back, putting your shield up instead of taking a swing etc etc. Taking it out might promote people moving around but there are other ways to do that via terrain, traps, powers or tactics. For example, have an enemy cleric use consecrated ground and move it ontop of the pc's Or an enemy wizard use flaming sphere and have it adjacent to the pc's. The pc's are forced to move out of the power's damaging effects else they will suffer consequences that will add up over time. A few monsters also have powers that have lingering effects that affect an area. These four rules have made my combats much more mobile as there is no penalty to disengage and a serious deterrent to continue fighting while surrounded. The removal of the basic shift is more of a flavor rule as it prevents players from making interesting defensive formations that aren't just a solid blob. Use controllers or artillery to make the pc's not bunch up together. That actually happened in last session. I used venom-eye basilisks whom split up the pc's since they actually took more damage by sticking together in a bunch like they always do. I would say the most amusing part of it was that despite the fact that they realized what the basilisk was doing and its effects, they still forgot about it and kept on bunching up together. regarding the tendency to nova and then run out of "hero gas" towards the end of the encounter I have a more drastic house rule. basically I removed the entire at-will, encounter, daily system and replaced it with a point based system that I am tentatively calling "hero points". At the beginning of each combat all players start with ten "hero points", at the beginning of each player's turn they roll a d20 and gain that many points. They then spend these points to use their abilities. My current pricing policy is as follows. Basic Attack: 0 points At-will Power / Special Attack (charge, grab, etc.): 2 points Encounter utility power:10 Encounter attack power: 20 Daily utility power: 25 Daily attack power: 50 powers that don't fit well such as stances and the sustainable wizard dailies are generally half as much to activate and also bleed 5-10 points at the beginning of each turn. So, if any of you who managed to read all the way through that are still reading, I'd love to hear your opinions. Thanks. While I'll admit that fights tend to drag out on a unlucky string of rolls, I don't think by doing the same thing solves anything. For example, under your system you say they start with 10 points which means they can't even spend an encounter attack power in the first round unless they get a 10. Say they get a string of unlucky rolls to get more "hero points", now they are worse off because normally they could just do their encounter powers when they wanted rather than wait till they got enough points to do anything useful. Sounds to me like its almost better off just doing total defense and flanking an opponent (taking opportunity attacks) until I can use a daily power.