Quote from: One Horse TownThe Armiger was hilarious IMO. You get tokens for use in special powers by being hit? Why in God's name?

It's the Dragonball Z syndrome. You can't uncork your cool moves untill you have the stuffing knocked out of you.
-clash

Quote from: SettembriniDoes balancing always end up being tactical-combat-illusoinism?

Nicely put.  I think this is a problem with some RPGs, or approaches to running RPGs anyway.

Quote from: SettembriniOr do the Delve/Paizo style set-piece encounters play a bigger role in me feeling like my role at the Battlemat could be filled out by a script that Mike Mearls programmed in far-away Seattle?

If you don't have meaningful choices about what your character is going to do, which way they're going to go, and if combat is balanced so that it's more-or-less a given you'll win, and the choices you make are all pretty obvious... that removes most of the meaningful choices.  It's a lot like running through a script.  The "game" shifts to something else, but I'm not sure everyone around the table would understand (or agree) on what the actual game was, how it was played, or how you evaluate if you're doing well.

Quote from: SettembriniThoughts?
Does balancing always end up being tactical-combat-illusoinism?
Or do the Delve/Paizo style set-piece encounters play a bigger role in me feeling like my role at the Battlemat could be filled out by a script that Mike Mearls programmed in  far-away Seattle?

Yes. I have always preferred using self balancing systems rather than actively "balancing" character abilities.

-clash

Quote from: David JohansenJust like World of Warcraft warrior characters.

Urgh. I knew there was a reason that i had steered clear of it.

Quote from: Ghost_FaceMy impression is long-term strategy is being thrown out the door for coolness.

I don't think we have enough information available to draw this conclusion just yet.

For a start, we don't know the methods involved in selecting abilities in any of the at will/per encounter/per day slots. Taking the wizard as an example, how will he select which spells he has access to that day? Most people seem to assume (for no apparent reason) that having per encounter abilities eliminates the strategic selection of spells each morning, yet if a wizard must still pick his available spells and skim through a spell book for an hour when he wakes up then this tactical element remains.

We also don't know how many abilities a charcter will have of each type. If per encounter abilities are appropriately limited then players will have an incentive to use them at the most opportune moment and not just blow them at the first opportunity - if you only have one fireball this encounter then it makes sense to draw your enemies into a choke point where you can hit them all, rather than waste it the instant that you see them while they are spread out.

The refresh rate is also of interest. Bo9S offers reasonably fast recovery of abilities (the Swordsage is the slowest, taking a full round action to recover a single ability). If D&D4 abilities are harder to recover then it reinforces the tactical application of use.

Much of the tactical element wll depend on the GM (if all encounters are in 10' corridors then a lightning bolt is always the best first attack) but the same is true of the existing edition. Greater tactical play derives not from the rules but from the situations in which characters find themselves.

Quote from: TrevelyanI don't think we have enough information available to draw this conclusion just yet.

Fair enough...if that's how you feel.

Quote from: TrevelyanFor a start, we don't know the methods involved in selecting abilities in any of the at will/per encounter/per day slots. Taking the wizard as an example, how will he select which spells he has access to that day? Most people seem to assume (for no apparent reason) that having per encounter abilities eliminates the strategic selection of spells each morning, yet if a wizard must still pick his available spells and skim through a spell book for an hour when he wakes up then this tactical element remains.

Well the reason having per-encounter abilities leads to this assumption is because with them, you no longer need to ask yourself should I cast this powerful spell vs. 3 goblins...the answer is always yes as it will "reset" after you kill them.  Selecting the particular spell in this context is irrelevant as that is a totally different axis of strategy only a spellcaster must be concerned with.

Quote from: TrevelyanWe also don't know how many abilities a charcter will have of each type. If per encounter abilities are appropriately limited then players will have an incentive to use them at the most opportune moment and not just blow them at the first opportunity - if you only have one fireball this encounter then it makes sense to draw your enemies into a choke point where you can hit them all, rather than waste it the instant that you see them while they are spread out.

Okay I'm a little confused...how can per-encounter abilities be appropriately limited?  They're per-encounter, that means useable once per an encounter.  As far as strategically using them it boils down to this, You have a better chance of winning an encounter if you use your most powerful attack first.  It might not be optimal, but it will reduce the damage your enemies can dish out and doesn't allow for the "dead before you use it" factor.  In your above example, the fireball doesn't mean squat if you die trying to get enemies into a chokehold before using it.

Quote from: TrevelyanThe refresh rate is also of interest. Bo9S offers reasonably fast recovery of abilities (the Swordsage is the slowest, taking a full round action to recover a single ability). If D&D4 abilities are harder to recover then it reinforces the tactical application of use.

What are you talking about?  If you have 3 types of abilities...at-will, per-day, and per-encounter...well you know when they refresh.  I think WotC is using Bo9S only in so much as "maneuvers" are concerned, not necessarily the mechanics with which they refresh, which are actually individual to each class.

Quote from: TrevelyanMuch of the tactical element wll depend on the GM (if all encounters are in 10' corridors then a lightning bolt is always the best first attack) but the same is true of the existing edition. Greater tactical play derives not from the rules but from the situations in which characters find themselves.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.  Tactical play can come in many varities and rules either support and enhance it or don't.  As an example...the tactical nature of Exalted is totally different from D&D.  Exalted's tactics are pretty much... speed(ticks) vs. damage dished out/taken vs. longterm/shortterm charm & essence management.  Finding the combination of these is what wins or loses combats.  The game supports this in that the opponent you face in a plain 10' room can still be a challenging fight with these factors since these factors can be challenging independently of where the fight is set.  Everything else added is just an extra enhancement or detriment for either side.

In a way I feel like you are saying that combat will only be exciting when you neutralize the characters abilities through DM fiat (ie...creating outside situations that hamper or negate them.) IMHO a DM shouldn't have to do this to have interesting and tactical battles.

Quote from: Ghost_FaceWell the reason having per-encounter abilities leads to this assumption is because with them, you no longer need to ask yourself should I cast this powerful spell vs. 3 goblins...the answer is always yes as it will "reset" after you kill them.

Okay I'm a little confused...how can per-encounter abilities be appropriately limited?  They're per-encounter, that means useable once per an encounter.  As far as strategically using them it boils down to this, You have a better chance of winning an encounter if you use your most powerful attack first.

Encounters in 4E are explicitely intended to incorporate a larger number of opponants and a greater variety of terrain within the same encounter (the multiple room encounter as opposed to a single room encounter) such that using a given spell early on might prove significantly disadvantageous.

Against only 3 goblins, I would agree that unloading the most powerful attack you have is the obvious and correct choice. Against 3 goblins who have already sounded the alarm to summon backup, and where you don't yet know the number or type of creatures who will round the corner in the next few turns you necessarily have a choice. Do you unload a powerful per encounter ability to kill the goblins and give yourself a turn or two breathing space for positioning? Do you rely on weaker spells which can probably kill off most or all of the goblins before reinforcements arrive, thus leaving you with a powerful spell in reserve?

It's not hard to envisage situations where blowing your per encounter wad early on is a serious mistake.

QuoteIn your above example, the fireball doesn't mean squat if you die trying to get enemies into a chokehold before using it.

This remains true, but it is an equally poor choice if you use the fireball on 3 goblins and have nothing left to use against the 4 orcs who respond to the noise.

In practical terms, having extended encounters is no different that having a series of smaller, independant encounters. In 3.5 you have to decide whether to use your fireball in the first encounter of the day or hold it in reserve for later. In 4E you have to decide whether to use your fireball on the first enemies you can or hold it until later in that encounter.

QuoteWhat are you talking about?  If you have 3 types of abilities...at-will, per-day, and per-encounter...well you know when they refresh.  I think WotC is using Bo9S only in so much as "maneuvers" are concerned, not necessarily the mechanics with which they refresh, which are actually individual to each class.

I agree that this may be the case, but it is another unknown. Consider the possibility that our example wizard can take a full round action to recover a per encounter spell (like the Swordsage). If that were the case then he would be more likely to use the spell at the first available chance (e.g. against the 3 goblins) and hope to recover it to use against another threat. If no recovery is possible within an encounter then he is more likely to conserve his power. What if a wizard is able to expend resources or learn a talent or feat that allows him limited spell recovery options (like Jedi in SWSE)? This presents another set of tactical choices (when to use the ability, what spell to recover, etc).

But without knowing the way the new system works we cannot do more than speculate. That being the case it seems more reasonable to assume that guys who have been working on the new system for more than 2 years are likely to have thought of and resolved these issues than they are to be ignorant of them.

QuoteIn a way I feel like you are saying that combat will only be exciting when you neutralize the characters abilities through DM fiat (ie...creating outside situations that hamper or negate them.) IMHO a DM shouldn't have to do this to have interesting and tactical battles.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. All I meant was that the extent of tactical play ultimately resides with the GM.

Let's take your Exalted example since I entirely agree with your assessment of the tactical nature of Exalted combat. But the extent to which the players are able to engage in that tactical mini game depends entirely upon the way in which the GM plays the NPCs.

If Solar PC A has a combo with some offensive charms and a perfect defense, and Lunar NPC B ploughs a large number of motes into a simple offensive charm outside of a combo then the Lunar can reasonably expect to see his attack avoided for less than the cost he paid to initiate it and find himself on the receiving end of a very nasty attack in return. We might say that the Solar is casting his "fireball" at the first available opportunity.

What factors might impact the Solar's decision to attempt this? Perhaps the offensive element of the combo is expensive and the Solar would rather conserve his essence to fight the Lunar's packmates (only one fireball and reinforcements are on the way). Perhaps the Slar is confident in his ability to survive, recover essence through stunting and continue fighting.

But why did the Lunar leave himself vulnerable to this combo in the first place? Surely this was entirely down to the GM - had better and more varied tactical choices been presented to the Solar player then the decision to use the combo would never have arisen (using a combo early when an enemy has a perfect defense available is a waste of essence).

All the factors involved - the presence of multiple enemies, the tactical choice of the Lunar - are under the control of the GM, regardless of the game. Part of the GM's job is understanding what elements affect the tactical choices of the palyers and providing them with genuine and varied options.

Quote from: SettembriniOr do the Delve/Paizo style set-piece encounters play a bigger role in me feeling like my role at the Battlemat could be filled out by a script that Mike Mearls programmed in  far-away Seattle?

:haw:

Actually, on second thought.



It would be funny, if it weren't true. I wonder how long before we start seeing players post action sequences and combos that 'crack' the encounter, followed by bug fixes from Paizo or WotC.

Now that is a scary thought.

Quote from: HaffrungI wonder how long before we start seeing players post action sequences and combos that 'crack' the encounter, followed by bug fixes from Paizo or WotC.

Have you seen the min/max threads on the WotC site?  That seems about halfway there.