[4E] 4E combat has ruined me for other games!

[John Marron]

My group played a six month run of 4E last year and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We're in a short break between longer games at the moment, and are playing a few one-shots to fill the gap. A few weeks ago we played White Box D&D, this week we played Mazes and Minotaurs.

As much as I love Mazes and Minotaurs, I found the combat scenes in both of those games were just kind of... boring, to be honest.

One of the things I enjoyed about 4E was the tactical nature of combat, the support for teamwork, and the "cool moves for all" from powers. The powers just made the fights seem much more cinematic to me, with people moving all over the place, setting up to support each others' attacks, and people coming back from the brink of defeat to triumph in the end. Even the monster powers made the fights more interesting and unpredictable.

So, yeah, I think 4E combat has spoiled me for less tactical systems.

John

[eepop]

Yeah, we're playing a short Vampire the Requiem campaign right now and we have found that after 4E its really hard to accept WoD combat.

WoD non-combat it knocks 4E's socks off, but the WoD combat is really lackluster now.

Another big thing is roles. After playing a good bit of 4E, the fact that WoD pretty actively encourages you to have a group of:
1) A social character that may as well sit out any combat
2) A character thats okay at combat and also covers the mental stuff
3+) Characters that are pure combat monkeys, to the point that #1 should almost always sit out of combat, and #2 might as well half the time. Meanwhile these characters might as well disappear at any time they aren't in combat*.


* With the exception of Chaotic stupid characters that do out of combat things just as an instigator, usually leading to combat.

[Eurhetemec]

Hmmm. I think the really big thing that 4E has, that most other games don't and that 3.5E didn't have, is "Cool moves for all".

That's a really big deal - The same characters in 2E and 3.5E tended to do one cool thing then a lot of just swinging away and praying. Often the fight was over before it started due to buffing, potion-use and so on, which could be exciting in a way, but got old a lot more quickly.

And everyone seem to work out to have more "cool moves", even those heavy on them before, like the Cleric, as they're not longer having to "waste" time or spell slots on heals, they can be smashing or laser'ing or what have you.

The ability to help others and work as a team well is nice, but I think if that was less present, 4E would still be extremely strong due to the way all characters get cool abilities.

Even after playing it so many times, I'm still not completely sold on the "tactical movement" stuff - And I don't think it would well in say, Vampire, but I am sold on the idea that adding in more tactical elements to fights which everyone can use makes them more involving.

So yes, cool moves for all means games where not everyone has cool moves seem more boring in combat. Out of combat, things can vary more. 4E hasn't perfected that. Some classes get unnecessarily skills, for example - there doesn't seem to be any real rationale behind a Barbarian only getting three skills, for example - All it does is mean a character which is only equal to the others in importance in combat is inexplicably less capable out of it - Similarly, some classes have good non-combat abilities, but only some. Doesn't seem as brilliant.

[Yo! Master]

I really know the feeling!

[Mock]

Same here. I really enjoy the team-focused nature of 4E combat, and it's kinda spoiled me on others. I played some Savage Worlds (Shadowrun was the settin) the other day, and it was a lot of fun, but it just wasn't quite as cool.

So of course, now I'm thinking about Shadowrun using D&D 4th Edition rules, and going "hmm."

[Scarik]

Same here. I really enjoy the team-focused nature of 4E combat, and it's kinda spoiled me on others. I played some Savage Worlds (Shadowrun was the settin) the other day, and it was a lot of fun, but it just wasn't quite as cool.

So of course, now I'm thinking about Shadowrun using D&D 4th Edition rules, and going "hmm."

I support this idea.

[Fallen Seraph]

The big thing with me on the DM side of things is the ease of setting up and running combat. I am not the best at math, or figuring out odds and such. So with lots of systems I am paranoid about screwing up the balance of combat, but with 4e it is a absolute breeze. I actually have fun with combat.

[Mock]

I support this idea.

It's not a unique idea - there's a site, uh, sr4e.wordpress.com where a poster here has taken some first steps. It's mostly a reskin, but I think it could work.

I've been thinking of things like how to handle wired reflexes, etc., and was considering letting some of that stuff grant an additional immediate action, or do the "you act on initiative 20 and 10" like some monsters get. Powerful, but...just random ideas.

Anyway, on topic, it seems like it would - if properly done - be a neat way to run Shadowrun.

[Galadrin]

Wow, that's weird, because I personally found 4e combat to be kinda gimmicky and free-form combat to be sort of liberating. Maybe it was your DM? I'd agree, combats that consist of "I attack, I miss; you attack, you hit..." would be exceeding dull. Here's the combat I took part in last night:

We were hauling our loot (over 6,000 gold pieces!) from the Jade Castle through the wilderness, going up into the mountains. Up in the mountain pass, some 100 yards ahead, we were spotted by two hideous, jet-black, ogrish monsters in loincloths, each atop a boulder on either side of the path. They howled and came for us, and our motley troop took to archery (we had no more spells and were all level 1, making this an incredibly tough decision, but to run would be to give up all of our loot). One of the beasts fell to a heart-piercing shot, and the other closed. It pummelled at our front line, smashing our guide "Grizzly" with its gorilla-like fists. In desperation, our thief threw a phial of a mysterious jelly we found (and bottled!) at the beast, but missed. The glass landed behind it some, shattered on the rocky ground and out springs (what we instantly dubbed, while cheering) a "Marmalade Monster!". The demon bashed at our Dwarf, bringing him frighteningly near to death's door, but a well tossed flaming oil toppled the beast, causing him to roll around on the ground... right where the Marmalade Monster had squelched over to! The beast then succumbed and was dissolved, as we beat feet from our (at the moment) friendly jelly.

The cheers were real, as were the groans. Characters were frighteningly close to death, and this was (in many ways) one of our first victories (I was already on my 4th character!). It was epic.

But that's what I mean, you can do ANYTHING with those rules

[John Marron]

Wow, that's weird, because I personally found 4e combat to be kinda gimmicky and free-form combat to be sort of liberating. Maybe it was your DM?

It's entirely possible, but since I was the the GM for the Mazes and Minotaurs game, I hope not

I find that the mechanical backing that powers give to tactics and teamwork help me envision the action in my head in much clearer and more cinematic ways. As a player, I loved the fact that my Warlord had all these cool things he could do to help and lead the other characters that had actual mechanical impact. I also liked that each of the characters in our group had certain things that they excelled at, and I loved the emergent synergies between different characters' powers that we figured out as the game went on.

I haven't run any 4E yet, but it looks like I may at the end of summer, and I already think that the variety of monsters in an encounter and their various powers will keep me more interested in the fight as a DM. I'm looking forward to playing up the unique powers of each opponent and giving the players a challenge by using good tactics from the other side of the screen.

Obviously this is a taste issue, but for me, I'm finding more freeform or abstract combat pretty bland these days.

John