Understanding the Maths behind D&D4E Combat

Posted on April 30, 2010 by Ellisthion
  • Share
  • Share

3d6 (Three six-sided die)As with anything involving nerds and numbers, the maths of D&D 4E combat has been analysed far more than can possibly be considered healthy: specifically, the almighty To-Hit roll in combat. But is there something wrong with D&D 4E combat? Recently, there has been a lot of chatter around the usage of 3d6 instead of a d20 to average rolls and increase the hit chances: a blog post, “Dice Heresy by Chris Sims”, has been the focus of some of this, discussing the maths and comparing it to World of Warcraft.

Background

Mathematical analysis of 4E D&D characters shows that the base hit chance tends to hover around 60%. This is a bit worse than previous editions, and monsters also have more hitpoints now, so people are pinning it as one of the reasons that 4E combat takes so long.

With the Expertise Feats in the PHBII and PHBIII came a Feat bonus to hit, which was claimed by many as simply a ‘fix’ to the mathematics of the system. However, a single +1 doesn’t change a system.

There have been other posts with various ideas on how to ‘solve’ the situation, ranging from decreasing Monster defences to Taking 10 on To-Hit rolls. However, using 3d6 instead of a has generated the most discussion and, at times, heated debate.

Investigating the 3d6 suggestion

The concept of using 3d6 means you are more likely to get average rolls. You trade out the chance of high rolls for fewer low ones, which to some is desirable. The maths of the distribution means that small bonuses and penalties tend to have large effects. Because of this, using 3d6 means the players are usually more likely to hit. Certain systems, like GURPS, use 3d6, although it has been pointed out that various differences such as more negative modifiers and opposed rolls mean the situation is a bit different.

Using 3d6 instead of d20 creates results in a bell curve.

Using 3d6 instead of d20 creates results in a bell curve.

The comparison of D&D 4E to World of Warcraft has been around for a while, and the suggestion is that since World of Warcraft has nearly an 80-90% chance of hitting, this is correct and fun and thus D&D should too. This is generally a misguided comparison as combats in World of Warcraft have a tendancy to either be either steamrolls or massive boss fights, neither of which match your average 4E combat.

Regardless of other concerns, it has also been pointed out that the 3d6 system actually makes powergaming worse, as each tiny +1 has more effect than when using a d20.

The solution

The assumptions about D&D 4E combat are simply wrong. The complaints about the system are ignoring one simple fact – it’s a team game, and the developers balanced it as such. You don’t have a 60% chance to hit, because your Leaders are increasing your To-Hit, and your Controllers are weakening the enemy Defences.

Whilst the assumption of 60% includes magic implements and weapons, it is important to make sure these are up to scratch. Positioning for Combat Advantage and similar bonuses is also a important: in 4E combat, movement and positioning are far more important than they used to be.

Whilst writing this, I came to the realisation that in our game, we have trouble hitting for exactly this reason. Our only Leader (a Warlord), doesn’t attend many sessions, and we’re behind in magic items (…partially our fault for being chased out of every town we’re visited [entirely your fault, ed...]). We have 2 Wizards, so we’ve got the Controller bit all covered, and sure enough: when we get our act together and coordinate, things work.

4 Fighters: Not a good combo.

If your party looks like this, the dice are NOT your problem.

Here’s an example: lets say you’re a level 6 Fighter. Without anything particularly special you have +13 (+3 Lvl, +4 Str, +3 Prof, +2 Enh, +1 Talent). Lets say you’re fighting an Orc Bloodrager, a Level 7 Elite Brute with an AC of 21. Your base chance to hit is 60% (8+). Spot on as expected. The Wizard Thunderwaves the Orc between you and a buddy, giving you Flanking for Combat Advantage. The Cleric hits it with Lance of Faith, giving you a bonus to hit. You’re now at 80% (4+), and the other party members only used At-Wills.

This also means having the party choose their Powers right. If your Warlord cares more about doing damage than giving allies bonuses, then he probably chose the wrong class. If your Wizard chose Acid Arrow as their Level 1 Daily, they need smacking over the head with a PHB a gentle explanation on the concept of ‘team work’ made to them.

Too much to ask?

Some may now say: doesn’t this put a lot of pressure on the players and DM? The players need to make sure they have the right role distribution in the party, with the Powers appropriate to their roles, and the DM has to ensure they have the appropriate magic weapons and the like for their level.

Wait. Let me to rephrase that…

The party shouldn’t be all Fighters, Wizards shouldn’t hit people with swords, and they should all have decent equipment.

Wait a sec. That sounds like every edition of D&D ever.

D&D 4E is a Team Game

Whilst it’s not all perfect, the fact is is the D&D 4E developers got one thing right: 4E is a team game, far more than previous editions. Work with other party members, and things aren’t that bad.

It’s no surprise that mathematical analyses of the hit chances of a single character, like mentioned in the Dice Heresy post, come up short: the fact is, D&D isn’t meant to be played alone.

Footnote 1: Feat Tax, Scaling Abilities, and Other Debated Technicalities

There are those who consider the Expertise Feats so mandatory, that they (and some others) are just a tax, and should be automatically included. In fact, they say that additional bonuses to not just attacks but also defences, all through the career of the character, should be given. See this forum thread, for example.

However, if you go to other areas of the same official forums, you can see dozens of character builds showing why the comments previously, about teamwork making up the maths, are spot on. Lets take the defences example. You don’t need special extra defences at Paragon when, at the same time, your Wizard is suddenly whacking everything with Psychic Lock for -2 To-Hit. And so on. The abilities of the Leaders and Controllers scale with level, and this makes up the difference.

Footnote 2: Why I think the WoW comparison is wrong

The premise, that D&D 4E is like World of Warcraft, is not inherently wrong, although if we are comparing it to a computer game then I think Guild Wars is a lot closer.

The problem is the assumption that it is the maths of the attack rolls which make these computer game systems fun, and thus should be copied over to D&D.

What really makes MMO games fun? It isn’t sitting there clicking frantically at pixels, it’s the fact that you’re sitting there clicking frantically at pixels with friends or like-minded individuals who are also sitting there clicking frantically at pixels. The combats are fun specifically because you can’t win them all yourself, and have to group together in a party, with a good distribution of classes.

4E D&D’s most significant similarity with MMO games like World of Warcraft isn’t the mathematics of the combat system, it’s the reliance on teamwork. Previous editions of D&D didn’t go out of their way to encourage teamwork, and often a single character could win an encounter: not so anymore.

So, let’s look at what makes a successful party in an MMO. Well, you need to have a good mix of classes, you need to have the right spells and abilities, and you need the right equipment. Simply, you need the right tools for the job.

And what happens if you don’t bring the right tools? Well, the computer games tend to devolve into people typing/voice-chatting angrily, asking who didn’t bring a resurrection skill or some such. In D&D, people assume the system is broken and make house rules to fix a system that isn’t broken.

Similar Posts:

About Ellisthion

Duncan played his first game of 1st Edition AD&D at the ripe age of 10. The fires kindled, he moved onto 3rd then 4th edition D&D, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, whilst occasionally dabbling in other stuff, such as far too many computer games. He prefers games with complex rules to learn and master, and favours high fantasy settings. He is currently participating in the Grand Gaming Experiment where he has run Star Wars Saga Edition and GURPS.
This entry was posted in Dungeons & Dragons, Gaming, Role Playing Games and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dwayne

    Of course it’s not necessarily an either-or situation. The system could be broken AND it’s a team game…

    I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle – as usual. The emphasis on team isn’t necessarily bad, but it can make it difficult when you have a semi-transient group with members showing up or not from week to week.

    I also thought that rolling 2d10 like we tried one week wasn’t a bad change. It isn’t quite as weighted towards the average as 3d6 and is more similar in range to a d20 for slightly better compatibility.

  • Dwayne

    Of course it’s not necessarily an either-or situation. The system could be broken AND it’s a team game…

    I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle – as usual. The emphasis on team isn’t necessarily bad, but it can make it difficult when you have a semi-transient group with members showing up or not from week to week.

    I also thought that rolling 2d10 like we tried one week wasn’t a bad change. It isn’t quite as weighted towards the average as 3d6 and is more similar in range to a d20 for slightly better compatibility.

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    The thing that has me concerned about the system in its current state is the focus on combat. It is very clear from the manuals that any role-playing that goes on is pretty much intended to be short, and only as a filler to set up the next fight. The whole feel of the game has changed to such a point that it almost feels like a tabletop wargame rather than a traditional pen & paper. Instead of focusing on interactions between characters and NPC’s, we’re focusing on strategic movement and getting the best advantage we can from a combination of gear and abilities.

    This means that a lot of the ‘flavour’ of the game is now missing in many ways for me. It has become more about placing characters and monsters in strategically viable locations than about creating worlds in which people interact with the characters that you have created.

    I also hate how each session is either now a ‘fight’ session or a ‘role-playing’ session. Before, we’d easily combine both…

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    The thing that has me concerned about the system in its current state is the focus on combat. It is very clear from the manuals that any role-playing that goes on is pretty much intended to be short, and only as a filler to set up the next fight. The whole feel of the game has changed to such a point that it almost feels like a tabletop wargame rather than a traditional pen & paper. Instead of focusing on interactions between characters and NPC’s, we’re focusing on strategic movement and getting the best advantage we can from a combination of gear and abilities.

    This means that a lot of the ‘flavour’ of the game is now missing in many ways for me. It has become more about placing characters and monsters in strategically viable locations than about creating worlds in which people interact with the characters that you have created.

    I also hate how each session is either now a ‘fight’ session or a ‘role-playing’ session. Before, we’d easily combine both…

  • jrronimo

    “This also means having the party choose their Powers right.”

    This is the most telling statement in the whole article and something I *really* hate about games, MMO or Tabletop. Because it pretty much implies “there is a wrong way to play the game, and if you take acid arrow it is bad and you are bad and you should feel bad.” D&D shouldn’t be about there being a /right/ way to play — it should be able to work no matter how the players choose to play.

    For me, the comparison to WoW is spot on and it absolutely shines through with this whole concept of “combat roles”. Prior to 4E, the places I heard things like “Striker” or “Defender” talked about were high-level raids in WoW, wherein people had things they were supposed to do and if you didn’t do it, people get really, really upset with you. This is completely contrary to how I feel D&D should play.

    I think RupertG is absolutely right with this statement: “The whole feel of the game has changed to such a point that it almost feels like a tabletop wargame rather than a traditional pen & paper.” While D&D may have started out this way back in the Chainmail days, part of the allure to D&D as we play it now is investigating the story of the individual dudes on the battlefield — essentially, playing nethack where you happen to have a mini and happen to exist as a 5-foot cube of meat.

    4E is much, much more about the encounters than it is about the characters. And having to coordinate attacks with players — while it *can* make for a fascinating game — has really detracted from D&D of yore.

  • jrronimo

    “This also means having the party choose their Powers right.”

    This is the most telling statement in the whole article and something I *really* hate about games, MMO or Tabletop. Because it pretty much implies “there is a wrong way to play the game, and if you take acid arrow it is bad and you are bad and you should feel bad.” D&D shouldn’t be about there being a /right/ way to play — it should be able to work no matter how the players choose to play.

    For me, the comparison to WoW is spot on and it absolutely shines through with this whole concept of “combat roles”. Prior to 4E, the places I heard things like “Striker” or “Defender” talked about were high-level raids in WoW, wherein people had things they were supposed to do and if you didn’t do it, people get really, really upset with you. This is completely contrary to how I feel D&D should play.

    I think RupertG is absolutely right with this statement: “The whole feel of the game has changed to such a point that it almost feels like a tabletop wargame rather than a traditional pen & paper.” While D&D may have started out this way back in the Chainmail days, part of the allure to D&D as we play it now is investigating the story of the individual dudes on the battlefield — essentially, playing nethack where you happen to have a mini and happen to exist as a 5-foot cube of meat.

    4E is much, much more about the encounters than it is about the characters. And having to coordinate attacks with players — while it *can* make for a fascinating game — has really detracted from D&D of yore.

  • Ellisthion

    The comment is loooong, so it has subheadings.

    Part 1: Mechanics

    The thing is, is whilst there “shouldn’t” be a wrong way of playing, there is and there always has been.

    4E is a lot better than previous editions in this regards: if you hack together random Powers and Feats the character you’re not as bad off as it would be in 3rd Ed.

    The game is written with certain assumptions. If you want to use the game as written, use recommended Encounters with x amount of xp for level y characters, then the game needs to be played to those assumptions.

    In theory, you can have a party of 4 Fighters with random Powers, but the DM has to run a different game: you can’t run it by the books directly, because that’s just not how it’s designed.

    Since the mathematical analyses people are throwing at all this are based on the rules as written, the solution is to play the rules as written: a strong mixed team.

    The thing is, the main “wrong way of playing” is trying to do stuff your Class shouldn’t be doing. Part of the point of 4E is each Class covers a very specific range of options. Go outside this, and you’re playing wrong because there’s another Class that is more suited to what you’re trying to do.

    Re: Acid Arrow: The problem is when people are given options which ignore the Class and Role system. Wizards are Controllers. The correct entry for Acid Arrow should be:

    “Acid Arrow, Level 1 Wizard Daily.
    Blows stuff up.
    If you want to take this Power, throw out your character sheet, and reroll as a Sorcerer.”

    …which is also more satisfying for the player if this is the type of character they want.

    Part 2: Roleplaying vs Combat

    What has 4E really done by comparison to previous editions? The actual content of the rulebooks is reasonably similar: there’s the character rules, the combat rules, and there’s chunks of the DMG devoted to running adventures and campaigns.

    D&D has never had a chapter, “Here’s how to roleplay”. The books occasionally try to demonstrate how, give hints, and show examples of roleplaying, but they tend to come across weak and contrived because such things just don’t convert to text very well.

    4E has tried to:
    - Make combat more interesting
    - Make spellcasters less powerful

    These have side-effects:
    - Combat lasts longer
    - Less non-combat abilities

    The first problem is an obvious side-effect, and seems to be peoples’ main complaint. I don’t think 4E really puts specifically more focus on the combat, it’s just that you can’t SELL roleplaying, you have to sell the RULES, so publicity focuses on it. Plus, since it takes longer, people feel like it is taking up more of the game. But if you don’t want it to take so long, then you simply use less or weaker encounters… same as in any edition.

    The second is a (partial) falacy. There is not less non-combat abilities: you can still do nearly everything you once could. Rituals fill the gaps: they are the new non-combat magic. Out of combat, we have never been constrained by what the combat chapter said we could do, so why should it arbitrarily start now?

  • Ellisthion

    The comment is loooong, so it has subheadings.

    Part 1: Mechanics

    The thing is, is whilst there “shouldn’t” be a wrong way of playing, there is and there always has been.

    4E is a lot better than previous editions in this regards: if you hack together random Powers and Feats the character you’re not as bad off as it would be in 3rd Ed.

    The game is written with certain assumptions. If you want to use the game as written, use recommended Encounters with x amount of xp for level y characters, then the game needs to be played to those assumptions.

    In theory, you can have a party of 4 Fighters with random Powers, but the DM has to run a different game: you can’t run it by the books directly, because that’s just not how it’s designed.

    Since the mathematical analyses people are throwing at all this are based on the rules as written, the solution is to play the rules as written: a strong mixed team.

    The thing is, the main “wrong way of playing” is trying to do stuff your Class shouldn’t be doing. Part of the point of 4E is each Class covers a very specific range of options. Go outside this, and you’re playing wrong because there’s another Class that is more suited to what you’re trying to do.

    Re: Acid Arrow: The problem is when people are given options which ignore the Class and Role system. Wizards are Controllers. The correct entry for Acid Arrow should be:

    “Acid Arrow, Level 1 Wizard Daily.
    Blows stuff up.
    If you want to take this Power, throw out your character sheet, and reroll as a Sorcerer.”

    …which is also more satisfying for the player if this is the type of character they want.

    Part 2: Roleplaying vs Combat

    What has 4E really done by comparison to previous editions? The actual content of the rulebooks is reasonably similar: there’s the character rules, the combat rules, and there’s chunks of the DMG devoted to running adventures and campaigns.

    D&D has never had a chapter, “Here’s how to roleplay”. The books occasionally try to demonstrate how, give hints, and show examples of roleplaying, but they tend to come across weak and contrived because such things just don’t convert to text very well.

    4E has tried to:
    - Make combat more interesting
    - Make spellcasters less powerful

    These have side-effects:
    - Combat lasts longer
    - Less non-combat abilities

    The first problem is an obvious side-effect, and seems to be peoples’ main complaint. I don’t think 4E really puts specifically more focus on the combat, it’s just that you can’t SELL roleplaying, you have to sell the RULES, so publicity focuses on it. Plus, since it takes longer, people feel like it is taking up more of the game. But if you don’t want it to take so long, then you simply use less or weaker encounters… same as in any edition.

    The second is a (partial) falacy. There is not less non-combat abilities: you can still do nearly everything you once could. Rituals fill the gaps: they are the new non-combat magic. Out of combat, we have never been constrained by what the combat chapter said we could do, so why should it arbitrarily start now?

  • jrronimo

    I think we’re arguing two different sides of two different, but similar arguments.

    You’re saying that 4E, as designed, is not conducive to playing D&D in a manner that I’d prefer. I understand that, and you’re right — 4E D&D can’t answer a lot of my complaints in an effective way.

    What I’m saying is that, 4E D&D is more and more becoming a game I don’t want to play. I feel like it shouldn’t have been designed the way it is in the first place. It’s one of the reasons I want to check out Pathfinder — it took 3.5 and ran with it a bit. I don’t know if it’ll fit what I want out of a role-playing game, but I’ve heard good things.

    I think 4E, as designed, is more of a miniatures game than it is a role-playing game as I classically think of one. I mean, really, you’re playing a role more than any previous D&D game (in combat, at least), but it just /feels/ like some things are missing.

    You’re absolutely right about role-playing being a hard sell in the books. I think it’s one of those things that people go into D&D expecting, and so it doesn’t as much *need* to be described. Plus, that’s what the DMG is for — defining the rules and scenarios that should fit around the social; the PHB is the player’s guide to combat.

    I think a good DM can have a lot of role-playing and story advancement; but I still think combat takes WAY too long to complete. And if you only get together for a few hours a week and half of that time is spent on only a couple of combats… it really starts to drag.

  • jrronimo

    I think we’re arguing two different sides of two different, but similar arguments.

    You’re saying that 4E, as designed, is not conducive to playing D&D in a manner that I’d prefer. I understand that, and you’re right — 4E D&D can’t answer a lot of my complaints in an effective way.

    What I’m saying is that, 4E D&D is more and more becoming a game I don’t want to play. I feel like it shouldn’t have been designed the way it is in the first place. It’s one of the reasons I want to check out Pathfinder — it took 3.5 and ran with it a bit. I don’t know if it’ll fit what I want out of a role-playing game, but I’ve heard good things.

    I think 4E, as designed, is more of a miniatures game than it is a role-playing game as I classically think of one. I mean, really, you’re playing a role more than any previous D&D game (in combat, at least), but it just /feels/ like some things are missing.

    You’re absolutely right about role-playing being a hard sell in the books. I think it’s one of those things that people go into D&D expecting, and so it doesn’t as much *need* to be described. Plus, that’s what the DMG is for — defining the rules and scenarios that should fit around the social; the PHB is the player’s guide to combat.

    I think a good DM can have a lot of role-playing and story advancement; but I still think combat takes WAY too long to complete. And if you only get together for a few hours a week and half of that time is spent on only a couple of combats… it really starts to drag.

  • Ellisthion

    I think you’ve hit it on the head right there.

    I think 4E is quite good at what it’s trying to do, but 4E is not for everyone, consult your doctor before use.

  • Ellisthion

    I think you’ve hit it on the head right there.

    I think 4E is quite good at what it’s trying to do, but 4E is not for everyone, consult your doctor before use.

  • Nicholas

    @RupertG: Regarding RP and Rules. 4E is NO worse off than any previous edition for this. Roleplay is what you choose to make of it. What 4E did, which I think is smart, is divorce RP from the rules. Or in other words, if there isn’t a specific mechanical effect involved, it doesn’t NEED rules, and rules would actually hurt it.

    An example I have heard frequently is that 4E doesn’t include “skills” like Play Instrument or Dance. Or anything that is strictly flavor. Well why should it? Why should you be forced to choose between chosing something that gives you a mechanical benefit over something that confers no benefits? THAT is where character imbalances start from.

    If it is purely for flavor or roleplay, then it is entirely between you and your DM. If your PC wants to be a Poet, or a Lute player, or whatever else you can think of that is completely immaterial to combat, then it doesn’t need to be considered the same way as combat powers are considered.

    You can do nothing but RP in D&D if you want to. And heck, you can use Skill Challenges in your RP so you could even level that way if you really liked that style of play (of course I might argue a different game system would suit your needs more).

    Mixing RP and Rules is not value-add. It subtracts.

  • Nicholas

    @RupertG: Regarding RP and Rules. 4E is NO worse off than any previous edition for this. Roleplay is what you choose to make of it. What 4E did, which I think is smart, is divorce RP from the rules. Or in other words, if there isn’t a specific mechanical effect involved, it doesn’t NEED rules, and rules would actually hurt it.

    An example I have heard frequently is that 4E doesn’t include “skills” like Play Instrument or Dance. Or anything that is strictly flavor. Well why should it? Why should you be forced to choose between chosing something that gives you a mechanical benefit over something that confers no benefits? THAT is where character imbalances start from.

    If it is purely for flavor or roleplay, then it is entirely between you and your DM. If your PC wants to be a Poet, or a Lute player, or whatever else you can think of that is completely immaterial to combat, then it doesn’t need to be considered the same way as combat powers are considered.

    You can do nothing but RP in D&D if you want to. And heck, you can use Skill Challenges in your RP so you could even level that way if you really liked that style of play (of course I might argue a different game system would suit your needs more).

    Mixing RP and Rules is not value-add. It subtracts.

  • Ellisthion

    Thanks for your comment, Nicholas.

    I agree with you on this.

    Including skills which are mostly for flavour with no combat use does cause trouble. I had a Duelist with fairly significant ranks in Perform, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), and similar things. They were used… almost never, and my character was certainly weaker for it: these skill points would have been much more effective in something like… well, Hide, now that I think about it. Hmm. Yeah, Hide.

    We just finished a game of Call of Cthulhu, and one of my biggest problems with that system was that there were simply too many minor non-combat skills. Producing a realistic spread of general knowledge results in you being much less effective than a specialized character. Wanna drive a car? Sure, but your ability to fire a pistol will suffer. Argh.

    I think the removal of things like Perform works well with the compact skill system in 4E. Also, if someone’s ability to do something isn’t measured by the rules, it encourages the DM to be more free with it.

    Wrong: (3.5)
    Player: I play the lute.
    DM: Hmm. Got Perform (Lute)?

    Right: (4E)
    Player: I play the lute.
    DM: Okay, no problemo.

    This also mirrors earlier editions.

  • Ellisthion

    Thanks for your comment, Nicholas.

    I agree with you on this.

    Including skills which are mostly for flavour with no combat use does cause trouble. I had a Duelist with fairly significant ranks in Perform, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), and similar things. They were used… almost never, and my character was certainly weaker for it: these skill points would have been much more effective in something like… well, Hide, now that I think about it. Hmm. Yeah, Hide.

    We just finished a game of Call of Cthulhu, and one of my biggest problems with that system was that there were simply too many minor non-combat skills. Producing a realistic spread of general knowledge results in you being much less effective than a specialized character. Wanna drive a car? Sure, but your ability to fire a pistol will suffer. Argh.

    I think the removal of things like Perform works well with the compact skill system in 4E. Also, if someone’s ability to do something isn’t measured by the rules, it encourages the DM to be more free with it.

    Wrong: (3.5)
    Player: I play the lute.
    DM: Hmm. Got Perform (Lute)?

    Right: (4E)
    Player: I play the lute.
    DM: Okay, no problemo.

    This also mirrors earlier editions.

  • Ptorq

    I think the above two comments are spot on. In particular, I thought the “Knowledge (Local)” skill in 3.5 ought to have been a freebie… “Yeah, you’ve lived here all your life, but you have no idea where the mayor’s house is, because you spent all your points on stuff that might actually be useful in the rest of the world instead of putting any into Knowledge (Local – Podunk) so you’d know who the mayor of this one-horse burg is.”

  • Ptorq

    I think the above two comments are spot on. In particular, I thought the “Knowledge (Local)” skill in 3.5 ought to have been a freebie… “Yeah, you’ve lived here all your life, but you have no idea where the mayor’s house is, because you spent all your points on stuff that might actually be useful in the rest of the world instead of putting any into Knowledge (Local – Podunk) so you’d know who the mayor of this one-horse burg is.”

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    @Nicholas I think you have kind of missed the point of what I was trying to say. D&D has ALWAYS struggled with skills, never gotten it right, and I don’t think its 100% in 4E either but it’s gotten pretty close.

    Edit: Actually, my comments were based on the combat system primarily and how it seems to dominate everything about the game now. The skills, the long spell lists, etc, provided flavour or a starting point for fun role-playing experiences. These are now largely gone. Some of the most memorial moments have been because of original or unusual application of spells and skills. (For example a bard summoning a cello and the druid changing it into a boat, or a Wizard using Forced Gift to steal the ancient idols that were going to used against the party). That’s kind of what I was talking about… [End Edit]

    What I was lamenting is the lack of ‘character’ that the game seems to have. To read the rulebooks of old was to enter into magical kingdoms filled with fantasy and action. Reading the current books remind me of reading computer game manuals… Sure the game might be fun, but the book is sure dry.

    This might not be a big problem, except it tends to rub off on the players.

    This weekend, however, I ran a game of 4E where I threw out the rules, threw out the A3 sheet of square paper, threw out the models and the game ran great. It was the 2nd best game of 4E I’ve had, only beaten by the one game in which there was no combat taking 4 hours to complete. The other players, after seeing the direction it was going, did the same. It was an excellent game, but had very little to do with which version of the game we were running (which is, I am assuming, your point…)

    @Ptorq Surely no good GM would ever try to pull that one on their players? It would take an absolute rules lawyer to try and justify that, or are you talking from experience…?

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    @Nicholas I think you have kind of missed the point of what I was trying to say. D&D has ALWAYS struggled with skills, never gotten it right, and I don’t think its 100% in 4E either but it’s gotten pretty close.

    Edit: Actually, my comments were based on the combat system primarily and how it seems to dominate everything about the game now. The skills, the long spell lists, etc, provided flavour or a starting point for fun role-playing experiences. These are now largely gone. Some of the most memorial moments have been because of original or unusual application of spells and skills. (For example a bard summoning a cello and the druid changing it into a boat, or a Wizard using Forced Gift to steal the ancient idols that were going to used against the party). That’s kind of what I was talking about… [End Edit]

    What I was lamenting is the lack of ‘character’ that the game seems to have. To read the rulebooks of old was to enter into magical kingdoms filled with fantasy and action. Reading the current books remind me of reading computer game manuals… Sure the game might be fun, but the book is sure dry.

    This might not be a big problem, except it tends to rub off on the players.

    This weekend, however, I ran a game of 4E where I threw out the rules, threw out the A3 sheet of square paper, threw out the models and the game ran great. It was the 2nd best game of 4E I’ve had, only beaten by the one game in which there was no combat taking 4 hours to complete. The other players, after seeing the direction it was going, did the same. It was an excellent game, but had very little to do with which version of the game we were running (which is, I am assuming, your point…)

    @Ptorq Surely no good GM would ever try to pull that one on their players? It would take an absolute rules lawyer to try and justify that, or are you talking from experience…?

  • Nicholas

    @RupertG – I see where you are going with that, but I still don’t believe that 4E is any poorer than previous editions because they shifted the focus to more of an adventure feel.

    You can STILL sell your DM on “original or unusual applications of spells.” Your example of playing the game and avoiding the use of most mechanics attests to that. You can also as a DM add new spells and rituals to the game. However, having Casters memorize a bunch of spells that serve little use UNLESS you can figure out some unusual application that you can sell to the DM adds what?

    That kind of magic was largely moved to Rituals, because it was assumed that most RP took place outside of combat. But just because it takes place outside of combat doesn’t mean that it is discouraged.

    While you and I may politely disagree on what we think are the most important elements in a successful play session, I am looking at this primarily from the Game Design standpoint. As you proved, you can play a fun RPG without the use of any books or rules. Kids have done that for time immemorial. However, if you are going to design a rules system for a game, I think it should be as clean as possible, and to me that means it should be direct and unambiguous as possible. Streamlining magic such that combat spells and RP/Miscellaneous Spells are separated is a good thing.

    I also kind of like the shift in 4E to more tactical play. Everyone’s experiences are different, but among the people I have played with over the years, parties in previous editions were usually very lopsided (power-wise) and combats often became competitive to see who could dominate.

    While some bristle at the Roles concept being so heavy-handedly applied in 4E, I kind of like the idea that it just doesn’t have to be about making a character who can dish out the most damage, as it is building your characters to serve a specific useful function, and that tactics matters a lot more.

    If someone doesn’t enjoy those things that much and is much more into the pure RP elements, you can do that as you ahve shown, but I have played a LOT of different RPGs over the years and there are LOTS of better games to play if you wanted to focus on RP over combat.

  • Nicholas

    @RupertG – I see where you are going with that, but I still don’t believe that 4E is any poorer than previous editions because they shifted the focus to more of an adventure feel.

    You can STILL sell your DM on “original or unusual applications of spells.” Your example of playing the game and avoiding the use of most mechanics attests to that. You can also as a DM add new spells and rituals to the game. However, having Casters memorize a bunch of spells that serve little use UNLESS you can figure out some unusual application that you can sell to the DM adds what?

    That kind of magic was largely moved to Rituals, because it was assumed that most RP took place outside of combat. But just because it takes place outside of combat doesn’t mean that it is discouraged.

    While you and I may politely disagree on what we think are the most important elements in a successful play session, I am looking at this primarily from the Game Design standpoint. As you proved, you can play a fun RPG without the use of any books or rules. Kids have done that for time immemorial. However, if you are going to design a rules system for a game, I think it should be as clean as possible, and to me that means it should be direct and unambiguous as possible. Streamlining magic such that combat spells and RP/Miscellaneous Spells are separated is a good thing.

    I also kind of like the shift in 4E to more tactical play. Everyone’s experiences are different, but among the people I have played with over the years, parties in previous editions were usually very lopsided (power-wise) and combats often became competitive to see who could dominate.

    While some bristle at the Roles concept being so heavy-handedly applied in 4E, I kind of like the idea that it just doesn’t have to be about making a character who can dish out the most damage, as it is building your characters to serve a specific useful function, and that tactics matters a lot more.

    If someone doesn’t enjoy those things that much and is much more into the pure RP elements, you can do that as you ahve shown, but I have played a LOT of different RPGs over the years and there are LOTS of better games to play if you wanted to focus on RP over combat.

  • Bardicman

    About the small flavor skills, I feel that their absence ruins 4.0. What if I want to play a lute poet character who has most of his power in is lute playing. What if I don’t want the hulking fighter to be better at me than playing the lute by simply “saying so”. At the very least, there should be a separate “flavor skills” area, with it’s own set of skill points.

    • http://diceofdoom.com RupertG

      I’m inclined to agree with you on this point. I think that a lot of what allowed characters to be individualised has been lost with the ‘flavour’ skills that used to exist. It is certainly something that could be easily embedded into the system currently with very little disruption to the current ruleset and would appease a lot of the gamers who find this omission a point of concern.

  • Bardicman

    “Balance” also seems to be something that only is important in fights. In a role-play heavy game, these skills could be important. The lack of these skill steers players into one type of game, hack n’ slash.

    • http://diceofdoom.com RupertG

      The most memorable games that I have ever played have involved player’s who would use their non-combat skills in tactical ways that allowed for a greater diversification of the characters. With the advent of 4e, it seems that the lack of these options has unwittingly created the situation where characters appear to be all cut from the same template in many instances.

  • Anonymous

    Consider your two comments, Bardicman. In the second, you decry balance as only for combat, yet in the first you ask for a skill system for non-combat stuff, desiring lute-playing to be fair and not just based on what people “say so”. Thus, you are requesting balance in a non-combat situation…

  • Number90901

    I must agree with nick. You can purely insert the role playing in yourself, without the rules to help you. As for the skills of lute playing. You could say you character has been playing for years, or you could maybe practice over a level or so to get a bit better. There is definitely not a broken system.