Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on July 05, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

Quote from: Batman on July 04, 2021, 09:06:56 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on July 04, 2021, 08:51:46 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on July 04, 2021, 08:18:36 PM
There are powers in 4e that change the story after the fact. The Staff of Defense feature for core wizards allows the player to tell the DM that the attack, as it turns out, didn't succeed. The wizard character's player can do this after the damage has been announced.

Man I used to hate those reverse time reactions in 4e

Aren't all reactions timed?? A 5E's shield spell function AFTER being hit by an attack, so a when damage is rolled simultaneously with attack roll, it functions the same.

Or 3.5's Immediate Magic feature where the Conjurer can use Abrupt Jaunt, teleporting 10-ft away when attacked or the Abjurer's Urgent Shield (functions like the 5e shield spell).

These are issues too?

Yeah but technically you don't roll damage at the same time. The order goes:

Roll attack -> determine roll total -> announce success/failure -> roll result occurs.

Shield happens in step 2 at some tables (open rolling), and at step 3 at some other tables (secret rolling).

Only after ALL that do you roll damage.

We did a lot of 3.5, so to cut down on time I often would roll both simultaneously and just color code the dice to modifiers: blue d20 and d8 was 1st at +17; red d20 and d8 was 2nd at +12, white d20 and d8 was 3rd at +7, etc. It's something that sot if just continued

I do that in roll20 too to speed things up; I just accept that as an acceptable loss (the fact the player sees the damage when he declares Shield) to move things along.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on July 05, 2021, 12:32:54 PM
I do that in roll20 too to speed things up; I just accept that as an acceptable loss (the fact the player sees the damage when he declares Shield) to move things along.

I'm OK with it because hit/damage is simultaneously happening in the narrative.

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:08:21 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 05, 2021, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: Batman on July 04, 2021, 10:12:48 AM"Why can't my Fighter action surge at-will? Because it would break the game." IS a viable reason why it's not something they can do all the time. It doesn't make RL sense, but then D&D isn't supposed to mirror or mimic real life. What my issue is, that people are fine to overlook the dozens of ways in which non-magic classes have daily/rest limitations on their abilities BUT weren't able to do that with 4E.

I couldn't get past the arbitrary limits on daily powers.  If something is what it is for gamist or narrative reasons, but there isn't any in-setting explanation for why it should be so, then the game just gets a "no" from me.

So, then all of WotC versions of D&D?

Yep. 

I have noticed that most arguments I see promoting 4e in comparison to other editions focus on comparisons with 3e or 5e.  I don't know if it is based on recency-bias, the age of the comparer, or the fact that the comparisons tend to be more favorable vs WotC editions as opposed to TSR editions.  But it's definitely noticeable.

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:08:21 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 05, 2021, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: Batman on July 04, 2021, 10:12:48 AM"Why can't my Fighter action surge at-will? Because it would break the game." IS a viable reason why it's not something they can do all the time. It doesn't make RL sense, but then D&D isn't supposed to mirror or mimic real life. What my issue is, that people are fine to overlook the dozens of ways in which non-magic classes have daily/rest limitations on their abilities BUT weren't able to do that with 4E.

I couldn't get past the arbitrary limits on daily powers.  If something is what it is for gamist or narrative reasons, but there isn't any in-setting explanation for why it should be so, then the game just gets a "no" from me.

So, then all of WotC versions of D&D?

Nope.  Just 4E.

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
4E has a lot of conditional effects to the point where action #1 occurs, you trigger a reaction #2, the enemy has an effect that happens based on your reaction #3, your ally can interrupt the enemy #4, which triggers a mark #5...

All of a sudden you're 10 levels deep and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Mexico wondering whose turn it is.

Eh, can it do that...sure, but I don't think it's very common in play. Not all monsters have loads of immediate reactions, and the ones that do are still pretty limited. But I do get the gist. In my games, I narrate things after the turn so when something is crazy like that it at least paints a pretty cool picture.

Sure. I'm joking, but I also kind of like that kind of complexity. The unfortunate thing is the game's relentless about it, so by hour 3 of a fight your brain is fried.
I'd love to take (or see) a fresh look at 4E's chassis and try to address some of its as discussed in this thread.

Quote from: Zelen on July 06, 2021, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
4E has a lot of conditional effects to the point where action #1 occurs, you trigger a reaction #2, the enemy has an effect that happens based on your reaction #3, your ally can interrupt the enemy #4, which triggers a mark #5...

All of a sudden you're 10 levels deep and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Mexico wondering whose turn it is.

Eh, can it do that...sure, but I don't think it's very common in play. Not all monsters have loads of immediate reactions, and the ones that do are still pretty limited. But I do get the gist. In my games, I narrate things after the turn so when something is crazy like that it at least paints a pretty cool picture.

Sure. I'm joking, but I also kind of like that kind of complexity. The unfortunate thing is the game's relentless about it, so by hour 3 of a fight your brain is fried.
I'd love to take (or see) a fresh look at 4E's chassis and try to address some of its as discussed in this thread.

I've been doing that for several years now in building my own system. If you're interested I can share.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 05, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
Yep. 

I have noticed that most arguments I see promoting 4e in comparison to other editions focus on comparisons with 3e or 5e.  I don't know if it is based on recency-bias, the age of the comparer, or the fact that the comparisons tend to be more favorable vs WotC editions as opposed to TSR editions.  But it's definitely noticeable.

Mostly because the WotC editions are - in part - reactionary to each other in the changes they made. The design philosophies that are their basic principles have altered to degrees, but concepts and mechanicisms have been pretty constant. The idea of martial abilities really started in "core" with 3e's Extraordinary Abilities (Ex, as its simplified) and are often based on a rest mechanic to recover. B/X, 1e, and 2e (minus, maybe, Skills and Powers?) are devoid of this, so it doesn't make sense to compare to things other systems never really used. "Taunt" mechanics back in the day were simply a player role-playing to get a monster to attack him, in 3e we got the Goad feat, Challenges from the Knight, Stances from the Crusader, and Skill Tricks too. In 4e, defenders got a whole class gimmick. In 5e, we have maneuvers from the Battle Master, a spell specifically called Compelled Duel. So when comparing editions, it seems to make sense to compare the ones who have mechanical applications vs. Ones in which are based on what the DM allowed.

Quote from: Mishihari on July 06, 2021, 12:07:15 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:08:21 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 05, 2021, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: Batman on July 04, 2021, 10:12:48 AM"Why can't my Fighter action surge at-will? Because it would break the game." IS a viable reason why it's not something they can do all the time. It doesn't make RL sense, but then D&D isn't supposed to mirror or mimic real life. What my issue is, that people are fine to overlook the dozens of ways in which non-magic classes have daily/rest limitations on their abilities BUT weren't able to do that with 4E.

I couldn't get past the arbitrary limits on daily powers.  If something is what it is for gamist or narrative reasons, but there isn't any in-setting explanation for why it should be so, then the game just gets a "no" from me.

So, then all of WotC versions of D&D?

Nope.  Just 4E.

Ah, the hypocritical approach. Bold move 😄

Quote from: Zelen on July 06, 2021, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
4E has a lot of conditional effects to the point where action #1 occurs, you trigger a reaction #2, the enemy has an effect that happens based on your reaction #3, your ally can interrupt the enemy #4, which triggers a mark #5...

All of a sudden you're 10 levels deep and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Mexico wondering whose turn it is.

Eh, can it do that...sure, but I don't think it's very common in play. Not all monsters have loads of immediate reactions, and the ones that do are still pretty limited. But I do get the gist. In my games, I narrate things after the turn so when something is crazy like that it at least paints a pretty cool picture.

Sure. I'm joking, but I also kind of like that kind of complexity. The unfortunate thing is the game's relentless about it, so by hour 3 of a fight your brain is fried.
I'd love to take (or see) a fresh look at 4E's chassis and try to address some of its as discussed in this thread.

Of all the years I played 4e, I think we only had one session where only one battle took that long to complete. It was sort of thr BBEG one involving a lot of moving parts and side things to accomplish. Most of our battles take 45 minutes to finish.

For changes, certainly 4e needed some. Even as I'm a fan, I'm not blind to the myriad of issues it had - especially early on. Monsters HP bloat was an issue as was their initial damage expressions (far too low). I love minions but don't think it should have been 1 HP (I'm thinking more like 20% of the standard monster HP value). So a Soldier Demon (lv. 12 Dretch lackey minion) might have something like 28 hp instead of 1.

Math would've been better too and a greater emphasis on Roles outside of class schematics.  A Wizard defender would be pretty cool as is a Sneaky cleric. It's possible in 4e, just not optimal.

Edit: also, maneuvers / Exploits / at-will would be universal. A Ranger can know Cleave, a Fighter can know Deft Strike, a Cleric can use a smite or a paladin blast away with Sacred Flame. Open up the power construct more and more cross germination among classes so they're not so....Boxy.

This sort of leads down the options like 3e where classes Don't really matter and you cobble together effects into a whole.

Quote from: Batman on July 06, 2021, 07:45:21 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 06, 2021, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
4E has a lot of conditional effects to the point where action #1 occurs, you trigger a reaction #2, the enemy has an effect that happens based on your reaction #3, your ally can interrupt the enemy #4, which triggers a mark #5...

All of a sudden you're 10 levels deep and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Mexico wondering whose turn it is.

Eh, can it do that...sure, but I don't think it's very common in play. Not all monsters have loads of immediate reactions, and the ones that do are still pretty limited. But I do get the gist. In my games, I narrate things after the turn so when something is crazy like that it at least paints a pretty cool picture.

Sure. I'm joking, but I also kind of like that kind of complexity. The unfortunate thing is the game's relentless about it, so by hour 3 of a fight your brain is fried.
I'd love to take (or see) a fresh look at 4E's chassis and try to address some of its as discussed in this thread.

Of all the years I played 4e, I think we only had one session where only one battle took that long to complete. It was sort of thr BBEG one involving a lot of moving parts and side things to accomplish. Most of our battles take 45 minutes to finish.

For changes, certainly 4e needed some. Even as I'm a fan, I'm not blind to the myriad of issues it had - especially early on. Monsters HP bloat was an issue as was their initial damage expressions (far too low). I love minions but don't think it should have been 1 HP (I'm thinking more like 20% of the standard monster HP value). So a Soldier Demon (lv. 12 Dretch lackey minion) might have something like 28 hp instead of 1.

I've tinkered with the idea of a damage threshold. Do less than the creature's damage threshold and they're "wounded". A wounded creature that's wounded again is killed. (Defeated, whatever)
So you only have to track whether a minion is wounded or not.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2021, 07:53:53 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 06, 2021, 07:45:21 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 06, 2021, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
4E has a lot of conditional effects to the point where action #1 occurs, you trigger a reaction #2, the enemy has an effect that happens based on your reaction #3, your ally can interrupt the enemy #4, which triggers a mark #5...

All of a sudden you're 10 levels deep and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Mexico wondering whose turn it is.

Eh, can it do that...sure, but I don't think it's very common in play. Not all monsters have loads of immediate reactions, and the ones that do are still pretty limited. But I do get the gist. In my games, I narrate things after the turn so when something is crazy like that it at least paints a pretty cool picture.

Sure. I'm joking, but I also kind of like that kind of complexity. The unfortunate thing is the game's relentless about it, so by hour 3 of a fight your brain is fried.
I'd love to take (or see) a fresh look at 4E's chassis and try to address some of its as discussed in this thread.

Of all the years I played 4e, I think we only had one session where only one battle took that long to complete. It was sort of thr BBEG one involving a lot of moving parts and side things to accomplish. Most of our battles take 45 minutes to finish.

For changes, certainly 4e needed some. Even as I'm a fan, I'm not blind to the myriad of issues it had - especially early on. Monsters HP bloat was an issue as was their initial damage expressions (far too low). I love minions but don't think it should have been 1 HP (I'm thinking more like 20% of the standard monster HP value). So a Soldier Demon (lv. 12 Dretch lackey minion) might have something like 28 hp instead of 1.

I've tinkered with the idea of a damage threshold. Do less than the creature's damage threshold and they're "wounded". A wounded creature that's wounded again is killed. (Defeated, whatever)
So you only have to track whether a minion is wounded or not.

It's not much of a stretch to go from there to the Savage Worlds damage/health system.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2021, 07:53:53 PM

I've tinkered with the idea of a damage threshold. Do less than the creature's damage threshold and they're "wounded". A wounded creature that's wounded again is killed. (Defeated, whatever)
So you only have to track whether a minion is wounded or not.

That's pretty common in wargames. For instance, in Battlesystem (1e), taking at least 1/4 but less than the figure's HD (hp) in damage results in a wound, and you put a wound counter on the figure. A second wound, and the figure is killed.

You can also integrate that with a morale system. Games like B/X handle morale at the unit level, i.e. whether the band of goblin stands or flees. But in real life gunfights, most people who are wounded go down, and are out of the fight. Even when highly trained. So having monsters drop when wounded, and basing that on morale, is quite reasonable, and brings back the terror when fighting creatures who don't check morale (like undead).

I also agree on the minions needing at least *some* adjustment. I personally DMed with minions having more than 1 HP too. A strict 1 HP thing makes them paper-thin and also feels too game-y, especially as levels advance. Some of the alternatives presented are promising.

Quote from: Batman on July 06, 2021, 07:33:28 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 06, 2021, 12:07:15 PM

Quote from: Batman on July 05, 2021, 06:08:21 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 05, 2021, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: Batman on July 04, 2021, 10:12:48 AM"Why can't my Fighter action surge at-will? Because it would break the game." IS a viable reason why it's not something they can do all the time. It doesn't make RL sense, but then D&D isn't supposed to mirror or mimic real life. What my issue is, that people are fine to overlook the dozens of ways in which non-magic classes have daily/rest limitations on their abilities BUT weren't able to do that with 4E.

I couldn't get past the arbitrary limits on daily powers.  If something is what it is for gamist or narrative reasons, but there isn't any in-setting explanation for why it should be so, then the game just gets a "no" from me.

So, then all of WotC versions of D&D?

Nope.  Just 4E.

Ah, the hypocritical approach. Bold move 😄

Anyone with half a brain can see the difference.  I've been through this discussion before, multiple time.  Back in the day when it looked like the 4E approach was going to dominate it was worth arguing in detail.  Today, your game is pretty much dead and few care about it anymore.  I don't care to spend energy arguing the obvious anymore.