Folks, there´s a big problem I´m having, but I don´t know if it´s just me, or if it has got more behind it.
When I play my Crusader, he has some very powerful moves, per-encounter-abilities.
I cannot see anything kewl in using them anymore. They do some extra damage, some do even extra ability damage or whatnot.
But it´s the designers who WANT me to make that amount of damage per round. I feel no achievement in dishing that out.
I could just as well don´t have that stuff and fight Monsters with lower HP score.
The nature of those per-encounter powers also lends itself pretty bad to combos of the kind the designers didn´t think of. So, it feels pretty much like tactical illusionism.
Now, there was a fight against some God´s Aspect that lasted longer than my per-encounter abilities. I had to pull every other trick from my arse, including using a wand of spider climb and my jumping skill to jump-charge the flying bastard. THAT was fun, I had some effect-recombination and tactical creativity going on.
Thoughts?
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?
Forgive me - but what the heck is a " B9S ' in this context?
When I saw the thread title , I thought you were referring to the Robot from the old TV series "Lost In Space". He is known as B9 as per production notes and several websites.
- Ed C.
Book of 9 Swords, supposedly a testing-ground for some ideas which are going to make it into 4E.
I assume you feel the same way about spells, then? Otherwise this makes less sense than usual, except for a classic nursing of the "Now my fighter has magic!" bullshit whinge.
I mean, I understand your objection (not so much your two questions at the end there), but if it doesn't apply to fireball or finger of death I'm afraid it makes no sense to me. Ultimately, it all falls to what the designers wanted you to have. Assuming you don't write your own spells from scratch every time you play D&D, I mean.
Quote from: WarthurBook of 9 Swords, supposedly a testing-ground for some ideas which are going to make it into 4E.
Thank you - we've been sold out of that one for more than a week or two. First time, I've seen that abbreviation for it.
- Ed C.
Xmas-Ape: Well, well. The spells, they are away after a while. And their effects used to lend themselves to creative usage. The mere fact that they are limited resources makes the decision to cast one a tactically meanigful decision.
I see a big difference there.
Quote from: KoltarThank you - we've been sold out of that one for more than a week or two. First time, I've seen that abbreviation for it.
Yeah, I suspect the B9S might be one of the few 3.5 supplements whose sales were boosted by the 4E announcements - lots of people will want to comb over it to see what they can expect from 4E (and indeed might integrate it into their campaigns to make the transition a little less bumpy).
Quote from: SettembriniXmas-Ape: Well, well. The spells, they are away after a while. And their effects used to lend themselves to creative usage. The mere fact that they are limited resources makes the decision to cast one a tactically meanigful decision.
I see a big difference there.
Alright, see, now I'm getting something out of it. You opened with a focus on their mechanical effect, rather than influence on the feel of play, so I kind of chased down that side trail for a moment. Now I'm back at the meat of it.
It's about the fact that pounding away with your good strikes and such is just a no-brainer? Take a moment, get it all back, smash some more orcs - none of the exhaustive planning involved in playing a prep, fire, and forget spellcaster. Just pick a couple moves and go to town on some poor mook.
I don't get it, but more in a "I come at RPGs from a different place than you do, and these concerns don't really affect my enjoyment of play" way than a "WTF are you on about" way. So, cool, but as I've never used ToB* in play and don't play RPGs for a tactical exercise I don't think I can offer much. Just wanted to sort it out.
I think there is some meat to your objection, but it's nestled into a web of broad change in RPG design concepts, the busted-ass math of upper-level 3.x D&D, and the legacy issue of the speedbump fighter, and certainly beyond my North American TV-watching self to fix. ;)
The point is, it took me seven levels of play to figure it out. It wasn´t obvious to me at first.
In regards to what you want or don´t from an RPG, more power to you. But evaluating a "new" kind of combat crunch in respect to it´s tactical depth is okay, no?
@TV-watching: I can´t stand the argument/pitch that draws validity from TV. That´s all.
Especially if the word "story" somehow crops up in the discussion. But we shall let that rest.
I've got no objections to whatever analysis you want to subject ToB* to. You can analyze it 'till the cows come home. I just didn't see how your objections in the OP were different from equally valid and identical objections to spells. With a more complete look at your issues with them, I understand completely - in the abstract, at least.
I would, personally, find it a difficult evaluation to participate in, given I don't have any experience with the material in question, nor would our impressions of the material's failings be similar, since I happen to think D&D could strongly benefit from more at-will and per-encounter abilities, more oomph for the fighter, and a pulling away from the logistics/tactical planning aspects of the old game. 's all. I'm intrigued if you and the other Serious Discussion folks around here hash out something interesting about ToB abilities, but I doubt I have much to offer.
* It occurs to me I failed to explain this last time. Technically, the acronym for the book is ToB, being Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. I guess ToB:Bo9S if you want to be really pedantic about it.
Let's not forget Iron Heroes in all of this. Whilst i quite like the system, some of the powers of the classes just made me scratch my head. I like at least a little bit of rationality to my games. The Armiger was hilarious IMO. You get tokens for use in special powers by being hit? Why in God's name? There were a few like that and from what i've seen in some of the 4e playtest reports there's plenty more coming in 4e. A Rogue power that lets you 'swap positions' with an enemy? I suppose you could say that's a wierd grapple/bull rush effort, but still. A Paladin 'strike' that heals your allies. How, why? I'm struggling, i must admit. This is all fine on a computer screen, but when i'm actually at the tabletop, i want some kind of rationality. That's magic, i suppose!
This is why FtA! stunts are superior to Feats.
Its Feats and special powers that cause all of this trouble; eventually you don't know what the fuck else to make up to keep up with the power creep; meanwhile, BECAUSE of the feats, you can't just have a way for a character to just "try a maneuver" without having the appropriate feat.
So players just give the fuck up, and keep doing the same two or three attacks they always do over and over again, because that's what they have feats in.
RPGPundit
Well I get what you're saying about Bo9S. It's not the same as spells because spells don't refresh after you use them, thus it's a long-term tactical decision when deciding what spell to use in any particular encounter. Bo9S is different because the maneuvers aren't longterm resources and thus require little, if any actual planning in their usage.
All I can really say is if you don't like this, which I'm still on the fence about, 4e may dissapoint you even more. My impression is long-term strategy is being thrown out the door for coolness. The designers have stated that every class will have per-day, per-encounter and at-will abilities...they have also commented that a character who uses his per-day resources up will still be around 80% effectiveness.
To me this is going to set up a pretty predictable pattern as far as combat, I've seen it first hand with jedi in the new Star Wars game, where characters unload their most powerful per-encounter abilities first...resort to at-will abilities if the enemies aren't down yet and pull out per-day if things get hot. Even one of the designer's playtest reports admits that this was how he was playing his rogue for nearly every encounter.
Like I said, 4e seems to be more concerned with an Exalted-esque coolness factor than actual strategic planning and usage of abilities. The problem is I already have games for this and played D&D for something different.
For myself it's a loathing for special case rules. Special Case Cules = bad game design and D&D's feats and spells are Special Case Rules by the bucket. GURPS's Advantages and Disadvantages hare close to being SCRs but slip me by because there's some consistancy of method. Not that GURPS is a game I actually end up playing much.
Rolemaster 2 is better than RMSS (if you use Talents and Flaws) in this regard though RMSS is generally more consistant in its method. All told I prefer any version of RM's Moving Manuever Table or GURP's action with a penalty approach (you can try it but you could break your neck) At least the new "fighter spells" will be special moves, too often feats are things lke "mighty blow" or "fighting defesively" which any idiot can try while leaving themselves wide open.
Quote from: One Horse TownYou get tokens for use in special powers by being hit?
Just like World of Warcraft warrior characters. :D
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. :D
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.