I agree with Osman that it's the Fantasy Trip the proto-GURPS.  I don't recommend it, however, since it's SJ Games, which earned a spot on the red list for corporate unhingedness.

D&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 19, 2024, 10:30:01 PMI agree with Osman that it's the Fantasy Trip the proto-GURPS.  I don't recommend it, however, since it's SJ Games, which earned a spot on the red list for corporate unhingedness.

Yeah, I don't care for SJ Games' insistence on mixing politics with gaming.  Still, you can find the old stuff on eBay that wouldn't give them any money.  There's also some retroclones available like Heroes & Other Worlds (C.R. Brandon).

Quote from: Trond on July 17, 2024, 01:52:10 PMBy "best" I think I would emphasize "most fun" or "most likely to be repeated". Only people who have tried at least a few different systems need apply

For myself, I have GM'd way too little the last 10 years, but I always think fondly of the time I ran a Sword & Sorcery game, loosely based on R E Howard's style, and rules loosely based on the Stormbringer system. I.e. combat was a slightly simplified version of Runequest, no hit locations but with an added critical hit table. It was a blast!

Rolemaster (using my trademark post-it notes in books to keep track of tables) also worked surprisingly well, although I always prefer to have a calculator nearby when I do this. 

So, which one do you prefer?

I'd pick Stormbringer as well.  I like Runequest's slightly more detailed combat, but Stormbringer is a great compromise between grittiness and ease of use.

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.The

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 08:20:05 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PM...

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

I would say it's a nice effect of 4E that you can trim the game's content to run a low-magic campaign, but I feel like it's still not suited for it. As a DM you have to be pretty explicit about banning a good ~70% of officially published classes & races. Normally I wouldn't complain too much about that, but it's actually a lot of work to homebrew 4E classes so that hurts.

You also need to houserule to account for missing magic items in core math, and various other problem points. What I like about 4E in this respect is it's easy to hack because the core system math actually works, but you still have to do it.

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

The only real and valid complaint someone can make about 4e are those that play purely TotM as 4e all but requires a grid to play. For those people, fair enough, that's a legit reason for not wanting to play 4e.

But all the other complaints? It's just nonsense being repeated by people who either never played the game(the vast majority) or had some axe to grind with 4e because it had no qualms sacrificing their sacred cows.

Luckily myself and my players never succumbed to group think so we're able to enjoy 4th edition, the objectively best version of D&D ever released.

Quote from: Zelen on July 20, 2024, 02:39:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 08:20:05 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PM...

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

I would say it's a nice effect of 4E that you can trim the game's content to run a low-magic campaign, but I feel like it's still not suited for it. As a DM you have to be pretty explicit about banning a good ~70% of officially published classes & races. Normally I wouldn't complain too much about that, but it's actually a lot of work to homebrew 4E classes so that hurts.

You also need to houserule to account for missing magic items in core math, and various other problem points. What I like about 4E in this respect is it's easy to hack because the core system math actually works, but you still have to do it.

The following comes from my experience in playing in two actual "human martial only" 4E campaigns...


First, there's no need to homebrew classes; the martials are literally the best supported classes in 4E with thousands of powers available to the original four that can completely change how they play and the later E-classes had access to at least one set of those classes' utility powers (hundreds of them).

You could literally have a party of all fighters and they'd each play very differently from each other even from level 1. Throw in the other classes and it was easy for even large parties to have the PCs feel distinct, and not just by their equipment.

Similarly, 4E had the concept of "inherent bonuses" that completely closed the math hole of lacking required magic items in no magic campaigns.

Not that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Even if you did go all the way to 30 the real shortfall with party synergy meant that a level 26 monster would be about as dangerous to a party as a level 30 would be to a fully equipped one.

Further, magic items in 4E were easily the LEAST interesting parts of a PC. Magic item properties were always inferior to class powers and had PC-based limits to how many item powers could even be used in a day.

In short, PCs in 4E were never defined by their magic items which made them super easy to discard.

If you REALLY wanted magic item effects in a no magic setting, 4E also included the concept of "boons" which were things like special training or recognition that allowed access to unusual resources that could be handed out in lieu of magic items.

In short, most of the work you suggest needs to be done to make a no magic setting work in 4E has actually already been done.

ETA: also what Monero said about non-combat options. It might not be as codified as 3e (which had rules for literally everything), but I think a lot of people excuse just how thin and hand-wavey the social and exploration rules in B/X and 1e actually were.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 09:01:33 PMNot that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Chris,

Did you find the HP bloat to be a problem? We only tried a few games of 4E. The combat engine was excellent, but the combats themselves took forever. I've read suggestions online to halve everyone's HP (monsters as well.) Would that make sense?

Quote from: Monero on July 20, 2024, 08:27:45 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

Skill challenges were a solution looking for a problem. They weren't fun, they weren't interesting, and the rigid structure made it far easier and more satisfying to ignore them and just run skill checks old school.

4e's rigidity was the game's achillies heel. Tinkering with the systems was a PITA, and people just went and played Pathfinder instead.

Quote from: Monero on July 20, 2024, 08:27:45 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

The only real and valid complaint someone can make about 4e are those that play purely TotM as 4e all but requires a grid to play. For those people, fair enough, that's a legit reason for not wanting to play 4e.

But all the other complaints? It's just nonsense being repeated by people who either never played the game(the vast majority) or had some axe to grind with 4e because it had no qualms sacrificing their sacred cows.

Luckily myself and my players never succumbed to group think so we're able to enjoy 4th edition, the objectively best version of D&D ever released.

See, the problem with your screed is that it is based on straw-manning.  As someone who has played a year-long 4e campaign within the last 2 years, my complaints come from neither ignorance nor bias.  They come from actually playing the game.

There are a number of clear experiences I have had playing that edition, and they form a solid basis for complaints.  They may not bother you, but they are real and legitimate.

• Character choices are large and broad, but very prone to hidden optimizations.  This means that some choices become much better than others, but without obvious indicators of which those might be.  A player can nerf their character's capabilities (compared with other characters) by only a few choices, as well as the reverse.  And optimizer can quickly outpace the rest of the party.
• Lack of niche protection exacerbates this issue.  Some people might like every character class being equally capable of filling any niche, but when a cleric is out-damaging a fighter or a warlord out-healing a cleric, players can feel that their characters are generic.  You might not, but some do.
• Combat takes a long time.  And the higher the level, the longer it takes.  And we had many four-hour sessions using published adventures where we did nothing but two combats.  Nothing else.  Analysis paralysis was a real thing.
• Many of the published adventures focused heavily on just combat encounters and spent very less time or space on exploration or social interaction.  They were written as, "This happens, so now you need to fight X here."  Now, these were WotC's own adventures.  While you can argue that 4e didn't have to be played that way, you can't deny that people will assume it should be played that way.  The company's own adventures are written that way.
• Having a "resolution structure" for social challenges might be a feature for you, but it's a bug for a lot of us.  We neither need nor want social encounters to be solved primarily with dice.  If the published adventures seemed to wound the other two traditional pillars of RPGs, the skill challenge system finished it off.  Some things need clear mechanics, some don't.  It's a matter of taste as to where that line is drawn.  Just because the skill challenge system suits yours doesn't mean it suits others... and history shows that more people didn't like it than did.

4e had some interesting ideas, and it attempted to change the combat in ways to make it less abstract, more tactical, and more varied.  It succeeded in some respects.  In others, it failed.  It's greatest failure is in the disconnect between the mechanics and the conceits of the setting.  That's a different argument, and this isn't the thread for it, as we are focused on combat.  4e could be a very deep, solid tactical combat experience if that's what you wanted.  But not everyone wants that.

Greetings!

4E was absolute garbage. It nearly destroyed D&D as a brand. Yes, there are a few 4E fans--but they are an insignificant minority. The vast majority of D&D gamers hated 4E, and with good reason. Commercially, and strategically, 4E was a dismal failure.

Try and cope all you want. At your own table, drink it down and keep playing 4E if you love it so much. The rest of the hobby is very glad to see 4E gone though. 4E is a discarded, hated edition that has been thrown into the ash heap of history, and forgotten. The hobby has moved on.

I prefer simple, quick, and brutal combat systems. Having some complex, multi-faceted system might seem attractive, but the fact is, the more options, the more realism, blah, blah, blah, the more time it requires--both from the DM and the Players. That time factor is compounded with each and every individual combat encounter, and instead of moving on and enjoying playing a Role-playing game, everyone gets sucked into a detailed, overly-complex, overly time-consuming snoozefest.

Thankfully, that is also a huge negative dynamic that the OSR has generally sought to avoid entirely. The majority of gamers want speed, fun, and simplicity.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I never got the chance to play 4e. All the controversy makes me very much want to try it, but at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never find anyone still running the game.

On the original topic: As several comments have mentioned, this is necessarily more a question of "fit for purpose" rather than a combat system being universally "best".

4th edition aside, I don't find the combat to be much different in play between any of the other versions of D&D. Yeah, they tweak little details around the edges, but the core system's barely changed over the years.

One combat system I will always laud is the one in Dragon Warriors, in that is serves the same purposes as classic D&D combat, while solving my biggest issues with that system, and without taking any longer to adjudicate.

I also really like the combat system in Warlock! for the simple reason that if you attack an enemy who is armed and aware of your presence, you are always risking getting hit in return. That's really how it should be.

Quote from: Aglondir on July 20, 2024, 09:13:37 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 09:01:33 PMNot that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Chris,

Did you find the HP bloat to be a problem? We only tried a few games of 4E. The combat engine was excellent, but the combats themselves took forever. I've read suggestions online to halve everyone's HP (monsters as well.) Would that make sense?

The early monsters were prone to hp bloat, and the developers recognized the problem and by the second year (Dark Sun and MM3) had revised the math significantly. Then Monster Vault in Essentials went back and cleaned up most of the classic monsters and MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale was largely regarded as one of the best monster books ever.

Honestly, 4E's biggest problem was Hasbro making them launch a year early. This meant a lot of thing were rough or missing. The reason the wizard is the only class with the controller role and its spells are so different from all the later controller classes is literally because they had no real idea what they wanted the controller role to be... but it go or be cancelled time).

Nearly all the problems had been smoothed out by the time PHB2 (the one that included as the "missing" 3e races/classes) came out 9 months after launch.

But you never get a second chance at a first impression, so a good chunk of the audience had bailed before the fixes came through and all the complaints about 4E that are accepted as facts are really only true for about the first six months of the run and the books already in the pipeline before 4E even launched. But as that was the experience of many before they left, it is a valid experience for them.

So, the TL;DR version is HP Bloat was a thing in early 4E, but had been fixed by year two.

If you ever decide to give the system a second chance I actually recommend getting the Essentials line; Monster Vault, the two "Heroes of" books (Fallen Land for the most classic fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user, human, elf, dwarf, halfling... Forgotten Kingdom for Paladins, Rangers, Driuds and Warlocks, human, drow, dragonborn, tieflings, half-orcs), the Dungeon Master's Kit, and Rules Compendium.

One thing I noted during the Essentials period was a number of players who were coming direct to Essentials from 2e or 1e instead of through 3e reported much more positive opinions of 4E. Essentials is definitely closer in spirit to earlier editions and is probably a better on ramp for established D&D players than PHB1 and MM1 are.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 21, 2024, 08:41:26 AMHonestly, 4E's biggest problem was Hasbro making them launch a year early. This meant a lot of thing were rough or missing. The reason the wizard is the only class with the controller role and its spells are so different from all the later controller classes is literally because they had no real idea what they wanted the controller role to be... but it go or be cancelled time).

Nearly all the problems had been smoothed out by the time PHB2 (the one that included as the "missing" 3e races/classes) came out 9 months after launch.

But you never get a second chance at a first impression, so a good chunk of the audience had bailed before the fixes came through and all the complaints about 4E that are accepted as facts are really only true for about the first six months of the run and the books already in the pipeline before 4E even launched. But as that was the experience of many before they left, it is a valid experience for them.

This is a problem I anticipate getting worse and worse with Hasbro D&D, given that they keep hiring people from the videogame industry to run it. The attitude of "push it out the door and we'll patch it later" is ubiquitous in videogames, but is never going to work on the tabletop. At the most fundamental level, you can't patch a physical book. Hell, even in videogame world, people are getting increasingly sick of it.