One, two, three, four... I call Flame War!
While I may risk being called a whiner should I continue to complain about 4e DnD, Our last game did highlight a major flaw in the game as I see it. When inter-party conflict began, there was no real way for most characters to intervene effectively. Now I will be the first to admit that I remain unaware of any rules which allow for subdual or non-lethal fighting apart from the rule on p295 of the player's handbook which allows you to designate a "killed" opponent as merely unconscious, and you don't have to even declare that intent until the creature is effectively deceased! Obviously, this will make bar brawls far more costly in resources for any involved party member, since there is no way to recover that damage more rapidly or easily than if you had taken the same damage from being hacked at with an axe.
Apart from the now unavailable ability that characters in other editions had to fight in a non-lethal fashion, many of the classic spells that were often used for this particular issue are now either not a part of the game, or no longer in existance. Rather than go over all of the different spells that are gone, let me discuss the few which have become powers that might be useful for this circumstance. Sleep.... ok, the ONE power. Additionally there are a few things that can be done with powers that were not available in previous editions (swordmage mark making attacks more difficult to hit with, various AC and defense boosting powers from leader classes, push/slide powers might work temporarily), but they are in every way inferior to solutions like hold person, or the older versions of spells like command (which in the past were much more effective for this purpose, and much less so for battlefield control).
Before this turns into yet another "grumpy old gamer wants to go back to first edition" post, I did want to talk about swordmages. They rule. Really, they do. I feel that Lianar-as-swordmage was resonably effective given his lack of equipment and my poor dice rolls. In fact, that brings me to another point... criticals in this game seem to be a little over strong given their frequency (which in some sessions seems like a statistical anomoly). Perhaps it is because any template or series attacks use seperate attack rolls, meaning that wizards will generally roll 3-5 attacks per round on average, and many others (I am looking at you twin strike characters) will average roughly 2. Perhaps it is all in my imagination, I really don't know. What I can say is that crits seem to be effective all out of proportion to their rarity. It seems far more effective for the vast majority of characters to crit rather than use a high level daily power. This seems somewhat counter to the design of the current power system. Perhaps it is because the defenses of our foes are a little high compared to what we are used to... or perhaps it is a reflection of the lack of options in character creation which add "to hit" compared to the ones which add damage bonuses. I don't really know which of these factors is involved, or even if it's all in my mind, but from my perspective that is how it appears.
Ok, one more gripe. On page 268 in the players book, it discusses triggered actions as actions of opportunity. It obvious to me if when one chooses to use an action of opportunity to make an attack, that it is then an attack of opportunity. If it is not, then the specific wording of that passage is more than a little unclear. This type of issue has been brought up before, and in those cases the specific keywords were used as a make or break test... so I am happy to see things go either way. What irks me is that I belive that a defender's mark ability should be made clear as it is a core feature of combat now.
Now that I have griped, grumped, and otherwise made myself a pain, what do you all think?
»
- ToddSmith's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 422 reads
Tell me more about the mark ability?
I'm trying for figure out what part of mark makes it an opportunity attack? It clearly states that if an adjacent enemy shifts or attacks someone else that you get a basic attack. It does not say that that they provoke an opportunity attack.
I'm under the impression that if it was an opportunity attack in the case of mark, that they would have just said they provoke an opportunity attack. But instead they specifically say you an make a basic attack. Am I missing something?
Also, I seem to remember Brian using a power in this very circumstance last night? Should that have even been possible? Perhaps you guys should hit enworld to see if there is some concensous out there on how it should work.
I have the very same Heavy Blade Opportunist feat, but of course I don't mark people. I just hope that at some point I'll be in the right place and the right time.
As for critical attacks. Equating them to a daily power is a bit erroneous. You can't choose to crit, unless Rob's cleric is around :). So just expecting to crit and deciding not to use a daily is just not something anyone would choose to do. Which is why I end up using my daily's so often actually. Some give me the ability to easily equal a crit in total damage with good roles. Two wolf pounce is effectively a 2[W]+1[W}+2[W] power. With my bastard sword it is a 2d10+10+1d10+9+2d10+10. That is 31 minimum (if I hit each time). Average damage is 54. Max damage is 79. This is all without backstab or quarry damage. This is far better than the max damage of Twin Strike which would be about 31 for me.
So hoping for a crit and using a daily just are apples and oranges.
Later, Chadarius -- Lords of Tyr site admin
I agree about the apples and
I agree about the apples and oranges argument. The reason I was comparing them is that for the majority of characters (read: non strikers) crits are drasticly more effective at killing folk than dailys. My real argument is that we seem to have an unusual concentration of them. I don't know if this is because of so many multiple hit powers being used or just from the fact that sometimes rolls go one way for a while randomly... but since they are much MUCH more effective than a non crit hit they seem to be happening quite often to my eyes.
It is unfair to use Lianar's crits to illustrate my point since he has several advantages that only apply then, but my wizard was inflicting 1d6+8 with a basic attack, but 3d6+14 with a crit. His best power was 4d6+6 and his dailys were about there or in some cases lower. Please note that in this case I used his less damaging at will power since it is a template power, and one about average in size to his dailys. ~ Todd
Attacks of Opportunity and Fighter Marking.
It should be noted that Combat Challenge, which allows you to attack a marked opponent who attempts to shift away, is not an attack of opportunity. Rather, it is merely a melee basic attack that is performed as an immediate interrupt. This is important because it does not count as an opportunity attack for feats like Heavy Blade Opportunist and since it is merely an immediate interrupt it is merely usable once per round (as opposed to once per turn).
Combat Superiority grants a bonus to Opportunity Attacks equal to the fighters Wisdom Modifier and stops the opponent from moving.
Opportunity Attacks can be provoked when an opponent leaves an adjacent square to the combatant without shifting. Opportunity Attacks can only be triggered once per turn (i.e. once per opponent that moves).
Or to use a couple of examples:
Mad Max is surrounded by eight Kobolds. They are all marked due to an area of effect attack he made the previous round. They all choose to shift away from him after making an attack. This triggers his Combat Challenge ability, since they are adjacent and shifting. He can make a basic melee attack against one as an immediate interupt. However, it is not an opportunity attack so he cannot apply Heavy Blade Opportunist. Also, he can only swipe at one because he can only use one immediate interupt in a round.
Now lets change the situation so Mad Max is surrounded by eight orcs. They decide not to shift and instead run away at full speed after making an attack against him. This triggers an attack of opportunity. He can make one attack of opportunity during each of their turns (8 attacks total). He can also apply Heavy Blade Opportunist since he is making an opportunity attack. This allows him to use any At-Will power as a basic attack. So, not a good day to be an orc.
I hope this clears things up a bit. I am posting the relevant rules below:
COMBAT CHALLENGE
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
COMBAT SUPERIORITY
You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your Wisdom modifier. An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.
IMMEDIATE ACTION
Trigger: Each immediate action—usually a power—defines its specific trigger. The one type of immediate action that every combatant can take is a readied action (see “Ready an Action,” page 291).
Once per Round: You can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. If you haven’t taken an immediate action since the end of your last turn, you can take one when a trigger allows you to. You can’t
take an immediate action on your own turn.
Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you
use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost. PHB pg268
OPPORTUNITY ACTION
Trigger: Opportunity actions allow you to take an action in response to an enemy letting its guard down. The one type of opportunity action that every combatant can take is an opportunity attack (page 290). Opportunity attacks are triggered by an enemy leaving a square adjacent to you or by an adjacent enemy making a ranged attack or an area attack.
Once per Combatant’s Turn: You can take no more than one opportunity action on each other combatant’s turn. You can’t take an opportunity action on your own turn. PHB pg268
Heavy Blade Opportunity
Paragon Tier
Prerequisite: Str 15, Dex 15
Benefit: When you make an opportunity attack with a heavy blade, you can use an at-will attack that has the weapon keyword instead of a basic attack.
Attack Of Opportunity
The attack of opportunity is a basic attack unless you have a feat like Heavy Blade Opportunist then you can use an At Will power.
(-:
The Dark Lord of Bartlett
attack of opportunity vs opportunity action used to attack
Intent gentleman, intent.
It think 4th edition has gone a long way towards supplying rules for pretty much anything that can be concieved "in game". I am actually really impressed with the clarification of the hit point usage. You can die from exhaustion, not just blood loss. I always wondered how in the olden days the difference between life and death was 1 HP. 1 HP, you were good, well hurting but good. 0 HP was dead as a door nail dead. It is pretty clear to me in 4th Ed, that when you hit 0 HP your body just shuts down. Not dead, but without some intervention, very soon to be dead.
It seems that with differing styles of play, there are differing uses of the rules. You can look to the rule books for guidence on creating an action or you can imagine an action and lean on the rule books to adjudicate the feasability. I cannot recall how many times people used a "called shot" in a game, whether is was to decapitate or disarm. Using a subdual attack in game has a lot to do with intent. The problem comes in when no intent is declared. Echoing Rob's sentiment, think to "The Princess Bride" when Westley first fights Inigo Montoya. There was attack, repulse, shifting, pushing, sliding, acrobatics, and disarming until Inigo was exhausted (0 hit points). He submits. Westly has the opportunity for a coup-de-grace and chooses to subdue instead.
If we were playing out the "Rescue the Princess Module" Westley (played by Chad) calls for a pommel strike to Inigo's head (played by Rob...racial profiling? perhaps). Do we jump into a heated debate about improper weapon usage, improvised weapon, protential negative damage multipliers? No. The DM rules that he'll allow a disabling strike.
Game play continues...Rob says, "Kill me quickly."
Chad rolls...let's say 18 + 26 (or whatever his bonuses are) and beat's Rob's character's AC. Chad grins and says "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window than an artist like yourself. However, since I can't have you follow me either... "
And knocks him out.
As the body falls, Chad adds, "Please understand I hold you in the highest respect."
And we move on to the next encounter...after a loud round of "hell ya's".
For what it's worth I don't get hung up on the rules too much. I just try to provide fun and interesting interaction.
There it was...
Thanks to imdb.com for memorable quotes, so I don't have to butcher them for flavor text. And William Goldman for writing the source material.
On a lighter note...
I would like to present the least effective method of stopping an intra-party battle in third edition:
Lianar and Dewerks were engaged in deadly battle. Issac quickly inventoried his prepared spells and decided that a Greater Command would provide the quickest end to the assault. But what one word to use to stop them both? Luckly, Issac was struck by sudden inspiration!
"Mate!" Issac commanded with the full power of his god behind him.
The battle between the two former allies was quickly replaced with a far more disturbing spectacle. Unfortunately, 16 rounds latter, another battle was joined.
On the subject of subdual.
I suppose I should also address one of Todd’s major rules gripes, the “lack” of subdual damage. Specifically, he quotes the rule on p. 295 of the 4th Edition Player's Handbook which allows you to designate a "killed" opponent as merely unconscious.
Frankly this doesn’t bother me, because it is obvious that most damage in 4th Edition is not intended to represent major bodily harm. The fact that you can regain these lost hit points after a five minute rest or from a Warlord’s Inspiring Words means that they are intended to represent the fatigue and minor damage that leads to the killing blow.
Or to put it another way, until that final strike it’s all subdual damage!
That being said, the ability to turn the final blow into a non-killing blow is in keeping with numerous scenes in novel, comics, and movie. How many times have we seen the hero beat the villain in combat, standing poised to deliver the killing blow? Feeling mercy at the last minute, the hero stops short of killing the villain and delivers a blow with the pommel of their sword (or whatever). It happens at least enough that it is considered a cliché of the genre.
If Todd's complaint is the lack of ability to show intent to subdue, I consider that a roleplay concern. A character can easily describe that they are fighting defensively or striking with the flat of their blade. Since "all damage is subdual" it doesn't effect gameplay one whit.
Or to put it another way, lets consider the flip side of the cliche. A noble fighter vows not to kill his opponent and fights a defensive battle, tiring his opponent but not seriously hurting him. His opponent is to the point of exhaustion and the fighter is poised for the killing blow. He doesn't kill him, but suddenly a less noble ally shanks him in the kidneys, leaving the noble fighter looking on in horror! That happens a lot in the genre as well.
Hey, isn't this how Season 4 of Buffy ended? With Buffy deciding not to kill Glory and Giles doing it behind her back?
Once you buy into the concept that all damage leading up to the killing blow is "subdual" damage, it isn't all that bad is it? It makes the fights more cinematic, plus it allows you to avoid having to keep track of how much subdual vs lethal damage is on a creature.
Well played 4th Edition. Well Played.
Maybe I am simply naïve...
Maybe I am simply naïve, but I didn’t consider the battle that occurred at the end of last session to be edition focused. Granted, it may have been more possible in previous editions to take control of Mahad’s mind and make him chitter like a gibbon… but I am not sure that would have helped much in the long run. That is because I think the stresses that caused it were not in-game, but out of game.
I am not Mahad, but I would guess that Mahad’s player, is getting a bit frustrated by the fact that his character is so often out of his control now. I don’t have a book in front of me, but using the 4th Edition Artifact rules it is obvious that Mahad and the Dagger of Vecna are “at war”. That being the case, it might be better to have the Dagger attempt to escape him, rather than control him, in hopes of finding a more compatible host. I actually have some thoughts on this subject, but that may be better served by my having a private conversation with the player and the DM on the subject.
As for the battle between Dewerks and Llianar, that seemed to be driven by two things. One would be a simple difference in roleplaying styles of the players and worldviews on the part of the characters. These worldviews came into clash when Dewerks attacked Mahad with his blade, causing Llianar to intervene.
To Dewerks player, considering his shared oaths of mutual protection with Issac Winter, I doubt he saw much problem with attacking Mahad with deadly force. He has been told to watch Mahad during these chanting episodes in the past. He was also told by the DM that the chanting had changed from empty recitation of the words to something with real power behind it. Knowing that the power was an evil god, striking early and decisively before harm would come to those he was sworn to protect makes a good deal of sense.
Similarly, Llianar has recently returned from the dead (Well, not quite dead, but a story too long to get into here). He has returned to a group that calls themselves the Moonstars, but is filled with people he has never met. One of the few old-timers is Mahad. Shortly after coming back he sees Mahad being attacked by a menacing Dragonborn with apparent intent to kill. Of course he would leap in to the defense of his long-time ally.
Outside of the game, Llianar’s player has told me that the stresses of converting to the new edition may have contributed to short tempers that night. I will not discount that as a possibility since Llianar’s player and Dewerk’s player are on record as not being fans of 4th edition. Mahad’s player is more ambivalent, but had to undergo some major rewriting in the edition jump since he was playing a monk.
Still, I would argue that the battle occurring was not a failure of 4th Edition. Many of us had non-lethal options poised if things got out of hand. For example, Issac had prayers like Divine Armor (to boost everyone’s defenses), Command (to break combatants apart), and even spells like Mass Cure Light Wounds (to allow him to dispense healing without even the appearance of taking sides).
I may talk more on the rules aspects of non-lethal combat in 4th Edition shortly (I feel this post is getting too long already). All I will say here is I would argue that non-lethal combat is something no edition of D&D has handled especially well.
Just my two cents.
I might agree to subdual
I might agree to subdual damage falling by the wayside actually. I do think that much of what was going on was accurately identified here. If that is the case, I would have thought that it deserved a little more than a short and obscure paragraph? Perhaps with the cooperative nature of 4e battles, it was assumed that this type of issue would be highly unlikely. I don't hate 4e regardless of what may be inferred from my comments, but I still feel that 4e gave the rubber end of the plunger to wizards.
As to the issue with the artifact, I feel that you are likely correct. Nobody want's their character taken over, especially by ritual casting, which has now become a key part of what makes magic capable of even a fraction of it's old utility.
The battle between Lianar and Dewerks was entirely unavoidable as stated. I was cranky for several reasons, and really didn't think things through as well as I could have. While I don't dispute that, I do think that had there been some option to somehow ameliorate Lianar's unfortunate critical when using a power that was never intended to put out that kind of punishment, that he would have taken it. The one softening thing I could do (not utilizing power attack) I pointedly did. I suppose the real issue mechanicly is that if I want to knock out my friend, and am sucessful, I will at that point be draining more of his resources than most encounters of a deadly nature would.
Ok, one more thought. I have heard a lot of people talking about the cinimatic feel of the new edition, and it is true in many ways. What I would like you to think about is this: The next time you watch a movie, and feel compelled to wonder why the hell the main character does the stupid thing that advances the plot (sure shelly, let's go make out in the car even though the wolf man is clearly killing us off as we leave the group), remember that THAT is cinematic. I think a lot of people forget that in cinema, the action is entirely scripted, and not in an organic way in many cases. Roleplaying for me has always had elements of it's wargame evolution. I enjoy character development and interaction. I enjoy character "build" creation, although it is still a little early for it to be very interesting in 4e due to lack of available options I think. I love roleplaying, and can stand to have several sessions in a row with no fight at all... but if there are no battles, that is acting, not an RPG. Similar can be said of any individual component of a DnD game. They are all required to contribute to the experience, or it is really not the same thing. To me (and I am well aware that many do not share my opinion) 4e has lost a lot of the wargame feel that previous editions had. I guess if I had to distill what I am trying to say it is that I like to watch movies, but I don't really care to reinact them.
~ Todd
ooooookaaaaay....
I actually find the argument that cinematic feel = dumb character actions to be spurious. Of course there are books and movies where characters act in illogical ways to advance the plot. This is especially true in the horror genre, from movies like Saw to classics like Dracula (seriously, why does he climb down the tower like a gecko when he could have left as a bat or in a thousand more innocuous ways?).
While this is true, I think that well written fiction has minimal plot holes that need to be covered by illogical character choices. To put it another way, just being cinematic does not mean the characters must act stupidly. If all cinema is at the same level, then The Godfather = Plan 9 from Outer Space, Lord of the Rings = Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie, and Pi = Santa Claus vs the Martians.
I am certain you don't believe that.
The other argument I suppose you could be making is that because the game feels more cinematic that the players will suddenly begin playing their characters stupidly. For example, that in 3rd Edition Issac Winter was well reasoned and cautious, but once he converted to 4th Edition he became a (cinematic) reckless moron. I don't buy that either. Basically, while players do adapt their play style to the system in front of them, I believe character personality is much more a product of the player behind the character than of the edition of the game.
It's fine if you don't like a "cinematic" feel. But saying that you don't like it because it forces you to play your character as a moron seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Actually you are making my
Actually you are making my point for me. I never intended to say that people would suddenly act stupidly... but a game is not a movie, and I do not want to play it like one. One of the great strengths that tabletop RPGs have always had over computer RPGs is their innate flexability. The more the game allows for you to do, the more you can actually do! I don't mind thinking of action in terms of "scenes" but I really don't care for the way that 4e has reversed a ton of the most innovative features of 3.x editions. Also, while I enjoy movies (good ones and bad), I have personally experienced many situations where any movie character would just move on, but the dnd character goes into left field precicely because the player dosen't want to do the dumb thing.
That said, Lianar's action in attacking Dewerks was an exact example of an action in character which would be considered dumb. Had I decided to not take action, I could have saved the party considerable resources and myself considerable time correcting the bad impressions I almost certainly gave the new members of the group. The issue I have with that is that Lianar has never been one to over think issues like "this guy I barely know just hit my friend with a broadsword," and to be fair, he was never terribly forgiving even before he was integrated into a tool of judgement. I highly doubt anyone blames me for taking that action which is entirely in character (I know at least that Dewerks' player does not, but I would not have been chastised for not doing so. On the other hand, my character's development, and most likely that of a few others, will be strongly influenced by this action for some time to come. What is important is that it was MY choice to do so. Setting up a system in which there is no way to combat your foes apart from fireball and stabbing is ill advised. Likewise, removing the save mechanic to prevent one from being taken over repetedly by an artefact (though to be fair we have likely not been using several rules correctly and this may potentially be one of them) is also in poor taste. I don't want to be forced to resort to violence. I do appreciate that clerics seem to have the option to heal and fight all at once... but why not give others the same type of flexibility in their actions? Hell a warlord especially should have had a whole lot more options in that regard. Tactical options are what they are supposed to bring to the game in the first place.
~ Todd
We may have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think we are at an impasse. You keep talking about how you feel your options are limited. I feel the opposite. You listed a whole bunch of spells that could break up the fight in the old edition (all "daily powers" back then). I see quite a few prayers and spells that could help in this edition, and some of them are mere encounter powers.
Similiarly, you rail that a Warlord would have no opportunity to break up the fight. I look at all of the abilities that allow non-spellcasting players to move, stun, blind, etc and say "Wow, so many more options to break it up before it gets serious!". After all, in the old edition these fighter types would be saying "I guess I hit him with the flat of my blade again (sigh)".
Seriously, we simply seem to differ on this point. You see 4th Edition as limiting. I already see it as freeing! I will admit, it obviously doesn't have as many options as Third Ed, with over a hundred rules supplements, did. But I feel it allows amazing freedom, especially when you compare it to third edition at this point.
I know you may choose to argue the point, but honestly, there is no place to go. I am more excited about the game than I have been in years. Six months ago I had trouble coming up with character concepts I wanted to play. Now I have six dozen.
I just don't see the system as limiting as you do.
It is certainly resonable to
It is certainly resonable to let things go. I also see the flexibility you do, and hope that 4e will grow into it's self in the same way 3.x did with additional books. I guess we should follow the wise advice that Chad gave yesterday via email and work on solutions. I suppose that since there hasen't been much activity on that front, but that there was here, I will start a topic here and hope we can come up with something.
~ Todd
Well, if you want no limits...
Why not take away dice and say things like "My character is the strongest in the universe". If other players disagree, you can bet against each other at the begining of the game. After that, its all settled.
Then give the game a wussy name like Amber. Whew, thank goodness no game like that actually exists!
I both like and have run
I both like and have run Amber diceless RPG. I do not want my DnD games to emulate it. Amber is a fine game for simulating the godlings of that universe, and might be a resonably good way to simulate a high end super powers game (like justice league level of power), but I think that I want a little more grit in my fantasy. I really want my wizards to NEED to be studious and my rangers to have dirt under their finger nails. I don't mind at all though that a DnD game could potentially be a bit more flexable though, if not entirely diceless and easily reformed.
~ Todd
Movies...