Synergistic Abilities

One of the biggest problems I've had with D&D is how combat so often devolves into player one shoots for damage then player two is going to shoot for damage regardless of what player one does. The classes aren't incenitvised to work well together any more than "if someone is at low health heal him".

What I would love to see is more feats and abilities that bring the party together as a fighting unit. Feats such as interposing sheild and abilities such as the paladins aura of protection create a situation where each player enjoyes the abilites of others instead of being jealous because they don't have them. I think this idea should be expanded so that all classes can work together to create a force greater than the sum of its parts.

What do you guys think? 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Sounds like a cool idea.

However this is 5e the mages strike back, so no we're gonna get god mages who invalidate everyone else.
One of the biggest problems I've had with D&D is how combat so often devolves into player one shoots for damage then player two is going to shoot for damage regardless of what player one does. The classes aren't incenitvised to work well together any more than "if someone is at low health heal him".

What I would love to see is more feats and abilities that bring the party together as a fighting unit. Feats such as interposing sheild and abilities such as the paladins aura of protection create a situation where each player enjoyes the abilites of others instead of being jealous because they don't have them. I think this idea should be expanded so that all classes can work together to create a force greater than the sum of its parts.

What do you guys think? 



I think you're looking for 4e...it's over there in the dustbin, with the rest of the other good ideas the design whizkids tossed out to make 5e.
My thoughts as well kedcoleman. Fourth edition finally got the "party sinergy" right, and avoided the feel of "every man for himself" I had with 3e and other D20 products of its time. Of course, there's still sinergy in 3e or earlier D&D, but it was much more present in 4e with its tactical depth. This is something I miss in the Next playtest rules we've seen so far...
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
My thoughts as well kedcoleman. Fourth edition finally got the "party sinergy" right, and avoided the feel of "every man for himself" I had with 3e and other D20 products of its time. Of course, there's still sinergy in 3e or earlier D&D, but it was much more present in 4e with its tactical depth. This is something I miss in the Next playtest rules we've seen so far...



Nerds arent team players dudes they avoid sports dont you know and have to be the brightest bulb instead of contributing to a joint effort.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

What the heck guys... I started this thread to discuss a way that we could make the game better, a game I personally like a lot and want to see do well. Instead what I got is three people whining about 3e, one person calling himself selfish because he doesn't play sports and no one saying, "yes I like team based mechanics and think they should be implemented more in 5e".
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
What the heck guys... I started this thread to discuss a way that we could make the game better, a game I personally like a lot and want to see do well. Instead what I got is three people whining about 3e, one person calling himself selfish because he doesn't play sports and no one saying, "yes I like team based mechanics and think they should be implemented more in 5e".



They are saying it wont be implemented.. or similarly depressing responses because everyone knows its basically another game element 4e did right... and in uber-depression mode 4e is not allowed under the 5e roof.

 Not sure if anything we do here is productive.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The problem is that anything 4e is immediately suspect, if not outright reviled, by both a (very) vocal minority here, and the 5e design lead.  4e was built very heavily to be a team-based experience, so any attempts at building such a thing in 5e will be...circumspect, at best.
What do you expect, anyone whose interested in a better game has been worn out by the overall mehness of the packets and the general vibe of incompetence from the devs.

I'd love these kinds of mechanics but the problem is that it requires 2 things.

1. No class that can end level appropriate encounters with a single action.

2. Every class have enough narrative control and battlefield impact to exert their will upon it to a certain degree.

Basically synergy is incompatible with the disparate class power levels.

THe non-mages have no ability to reliably affect anything the mages would care about (saves, speed, and general positioning of the monsters). There's no room for synergy with the god- mages making everyone irrelevant.
What the heck guys... I started this thread to discuss a way that we could make the game better, a game I personally like a lot and want to see do well. Instead what I got is three people whining about 3e, one person calling himself selfish because he doesn't play sports and no one saying, "yes I like team based mechanics and think they should be implemented more in 5e".



Sorry, don't take it as whining about 3e - I actually played it for a long time, you see? Also, you did ask about what we thought.

As I said, as someone who has played D&D for a long time and has extensive experience with 3e and 4e, I'd much prefer "4e kind of sinergy" rather than "3e kind of sinergy" - the latter being something we already have in 5e, and something you yourself points out as "One of the biggest problems I've had with D&D is how combat so often devolves into player one shoots for damage then player two is going to shoot for damage regardless of what player one does. The classes aren't incenitvised to work well together any more than "if someone is at low health heal him"."

We're not whining, we're agreeing with you. That does seems to be a traditional D&D "problem" (or at least, one I could easily see in D&D 3.5) - but that problem was fixed in 4e. Evidently, to those who liked said mechanics think that "team based mechanics" is a good thing.

We're merely pointing out this has been done in D&D before. It's a pity to see it gone in 5e.

Evidently, that doesn't mean one has to take the "4e solution" to the problem, but this is one characteristic I would like to see kept in 5e - if the designers are unwilling (or unable) to use the solution provided in 5e, then other atempts should be made - but "party sinergy" shouldn't be let go or sink back to what it was previous to 4e.

I hear Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had some type of "group mechanic", perhaps the designers should take a cue from there then?

Again, I don't really care much about how they solve the problem, as long as it is solved.
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
Normally I'd agree that the devs need to take some cues from other RPGs but the reviews and material I've seen for the warhamern games don't lead me to think that they would be a good place to start.

I'd like it if they took some cues from L5R, especially the skill system and skill mastery abilities. 
What do you expect, anyone whose interested in a better game has been worn out by the overall mehness of the packets and the general vibe of incompetence from the devs.

I'd love these kinds of mechanics but the problem is that it requires 2 things.

1. No class that can end level appropriate encounters with a single action.

2. Every class have enough narrative control and battlefield impact to exert their will upon it to a certain degree.

Basically synergy is incompatible with the disparate class power levels.

THe non-mages have no ability to reliably affect anything the mages would care about (saves, speed, and general positioning of the monsters). There's no room for synergy with the god- mages making everyone irrelevant.




Basically the game lacks the structural elements that enable the kind of muscle and ideas arent going to hang on this frame so we give up.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Normally I'd agree that the devs need to take some cues from other RPGs but the reviews and material I've seen for the warhamern games don't lead me to think that they would be a good place to start.

I'd like it if they took some cues from L5R, especially the skill system and skill mastery abilities. 



Is that so? I heard Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd edition was well received. Am I wrong? At any rate, I'm not suggesting that the system be taken wholecloth or without critic - merely pointing out somewhere else were "group sinergy" was a design factor (however successful it was).
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
How about a optional ruleset that has bonus damage or effects for when you combine class features, like if an enemy gets smiyed and sneak attacked on the same roundround.
I think that would be a beggining Mcnancy . Of course, you don't want sinergization to be a "one trick pony", rather, a nuance in every character choice you make through the game. If such an optional module could provide us with that, I'd be happy! ^^
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
OP, I would have to disagree with you that there are no reasons for teamwork in D&D Next.



  • Take the Fighter. He's got a lot of abilities that help his allies. Increasing defenses or giving bonuses to attack.

  • The Feat Taunt is a good way to draw enemies away from targets.

  • For the Trickster Rogue in my playtest campaign I added a new ability that we get to test drive this weekend:

    Deceive: [action] You confuse, bluff, and fast talk your enemy in circles and your poisonous words leave him flummoxed. Choose a creature within 25-ft of you and contest your Charisma against its Intelligence. If you succeed, the creature grants Advantage to the next attack made against it. The attack cannot come from you. The ability automatically fails against mindless creatures.

    It's basically just like Taunt, but it grants Advantage to the next ally that attacks it. That's promoting teamwork right there. True, this is a homebrew rule, but I got it directly from the Taunt ability. The point is that it's really easy to implement these kind of things.


  • Other FEATS. As you mentioned, there are a lot of Shield-based feats that encourage teamwork. And knockdown, disarm, bullrush...these are all good for setting up combos with your allies. Purge Magic is another one.

  • Also as you mentioned, Paladins get auras and other abilities that encourage teamwork.

  • What about the new Hinder and Help actions?

  • And I didn't even mention spells. There are a lot of those.


So yeah, I'd say there are a lot of teamword-based abilities in the game already. Combat is only as boring and repetitive as you make it. Use your imagination to come up with interesting tactics. Not everything needs to be hard-coded as an ability. Use terrain in combat. Tables and chair. Swing from ropes. Push monsters off ledges.


That said, I agree with you that teamwork-based abilities are fun and I'd love to see more of them.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

My improvements to the Ranger: A Better Beast Master Ranger.

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

There is teamwork in DDN. Many classes have features that affect multiple allies and there are aid action (help & hinder).

The different is the direct openess of this. It isn't tucked away like 3e or thrown in your face like 4e.

It's subtle. Many to subtle for some however.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I'm all for group mechanics and synergy. Without those, I pretty much will just return to play 4E.

In my humble opinion, the 4E combat roles sorta get it right. Not that classes should be enforced into one peculiar role, but the idea that the combat game should be built around a 4 roles synergy : defender, damage dealer, leader, controller. Based on this assumption, it becomes easier to design synergies and interesting mechanics.

An other important remark is that a lot of people, in my experience, didn't wanted the complexity of 4E combat. They didn't wanted to be pet-holed into one specific role, because it broke their immersion and favorised meta-game - as a pure board game. Thus, I think it is tremendously hard for Next's designers to come up with a solution that please every one.

Finally, I will state that the current approach, while not being perfect, is the more consensual. The design of 5e make it possible to have this kind of not too complex, not too much tactical, combats in the first place while letting designing room to plug add-on complexity with the advanced tactical gameplay - which rulebook will be for me and my players the true D&D next test of fire.

On a last note, we spoke about combat but group synergy also applies to exploration and interaction. We will see what they are baking up with the revamp of classes, but I have the feeling this is an issue that will be adressed.
The discussion starts with what is common amongst all classes, and that is attribute checks and skills, so that is the first layer of the team approach with features like aiding with a skill. But it will bring up the issue of aiding another person to heal, and that goes directly against including classes like the warlord that are written for that role. But that is also where 4E healing surge mechanics starts to shine with second wind mechanic.

With class ability, each class may have a niche defined, or they may have alot of utility like casters, so it is probably more important for martial characters. But each class may have abilities that effect the group. This really makes sense at higher levels when BA starts to cap off, and any additional bonuses or abilities you gain may be horizontal to effect a group, area, or campaign, versus the individual.

Skill challenges or exploration rules is another area to look at.  
One of the biggest things 4e did to make this possible is to add alot of "target: ally" powers.  You litteraly could not use the power on yourself.  You had to think of things as a team.

And the fact that everyone HAD powers.  There's very little teamwork you can do when "i hit it with a sword" is your best, or only, option.


Fortunatly, it's not hopeless yet.  Rogues get distract, fighter's have warning shout, and a few other things work that way.  If you add in some team feats (Phalanx formation), it's possible to actually acomplish that.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

"Negative" incentives might work too, like bringing back casting time; the time between starting to cast and the spell having effect where a hit can disrupt the spell. I've also found that group initiative can help.

The "help" and "hinder" actions of DnDN are a good but I'm afraid not often used because all classes are, by design, so always able to contribute to the fight by doing damage and stuff. Maybe making some classes less contributing in combat with their default class-based combat option .

I guess feats that make you do stuff like "interlocking shield/shield wall" giving shield users adjacent to you bonus AC could work. Maybe rules for flanking that work in ToTM combat and are based on 2 combatants declaring that they will attack an opponent from each side and which allows one of the 2 advantage from flanking. Or a "guard":" action where a player can declare she's guarding another adjacent character or feature (like a door or delicate object) and blocking access to it from a certain direction.

Having a goal or end-condition to an encounter apart from bringing the hp of all opponents to 0 might be a good incentive too. Mondter morale for instance, if the players can figure out that dropping the leader quickly might cause the rest of the opponents to flee or surrender they might be incentived to work together towards that goal, especially when the encounter could be very dangerous without this possible end-condition. Just to show that the DM can help too towards teamplay with the way he designs encounters.
A few ideas... possibly as feats, possibly as class abilities.

Phalax Formation:  Adjacent Allies gain +1 AC.

Covering Fire: When you attack an enemy, an ally adjacent to that enemy can move 5' without provoking. 

Guard: When you take a dodge action, you can give the bonus to an adjacent ally.

Fast Help: You can use a help action as a reaction.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

One of the best things about 4e martial classes (and other classes too) was that the powers granted effects along with attacks. So right now one can help or hinder in combat and whatnot, but that's all you get to do. Being able to effectively hit with an attack and give an ally who is flanking the enemy advantage is a little more exciting than just doing one or the other, even if your attack doesn't benefit from your extra damage bonus.

Very few people want to play a game where you take your action to just help an ally without being able to hit and so some damage yourself.

There is teamwork in DDN. Many classes have features that affect multiple allies and there are aid action (help & hinder).

The different is the direct openess of this. It isn't tucked away like 3e or thrown in your face like 4e.

It's subtle. Many to subtle for some however.

I agree.

I don't feel that the game should force people to work together so directly and rigidly. One of the draw backs to forcing synergy is that it also forces specific party composition and numbers of players per party to some degree.

I like how I've been able to easily playtest D&DNext with 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 players-- some parties without a healer too.

Defensive ward, interposing shield, combat superiority, buff spells, even choices to trip or push opponents all can be used for synergistic effect, but it is also nice to feel that it isn't essential for success.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I've not seen it mentioned, but there are the Help and Hinder actions.

As a DM, i try to remember to include some things like this in the game. I'm not always good about it, but I try at least. It doesn't have to be all final fantasy, or even get everyone in the party.

For example, I do have a house rule that allows for assisted jumps


  • Assisted jumps allow you to use the ranges for a running jump without running.

  • If you wish to use a running jump AND get an assist, the jumper must make a DC20 Dexterity check and the assistant must make a DC20 Strength check. If both are successful, the jumper may add 50% onto his running jump distance.


Simple little thing, but encourages working together. 

As I am running a lower, Conan-style magic campaign, I put in things that I stole from Iron Heroes - action zones. Some defined environmental features that one might be able to use to effects. These things could easily be tweaked to be multiple-player cooperation to pull off. 

I tend to make these more "things that the party doesn't really have", like area of effect, strong hindering effects, etc. Last game, I had the barbarian drop a 50# bag of flour from a solid height, then light the dust.
The problem is that there's no reason to work together or in a synergistic manner becasue the classes with tactical impact (mages) can end fights too quickly, while the non-mages have very little tactical impact.

Part of the reason 4e had such a huge team work aspect was because characters generally lacked the ability to one shot or completely lock down an equal level encounter under their own power in order to win they were forced to work as a team because not only did they not have instant i-win buttons but because the monsters were dynamic and had powers of their own instead of 60%+ of any given monster manual being hp sacks.

 

Fortunatly, it's not hopeless yet.  Rogues get distract, fighter's have warning shout


Can I make those everyman abilities... and how evil would that be.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Unfortunately, much of the teamwork that took place in the 3E days was a product of tracking exact positions - things like the tank being able to tank because of opportunity attacks and blocking movement, or the rogue needing a flanking partner in order to deal massive damage.

The thing I liked about this kind of synergy was that sometimes, you just had to make do with what you could, even if it wasn't optimal. Sometimes, the wizard needed to move into melee range, because nobody else could help the rogue flank and you needed to drop that thing now. Or sometimes the rogue had to defend the wizard by standing in front to intercept enemies and provide cover.

I agree with the Original Post in that the actions of one character should influence what others do. I'm not sure that ally-affecting powers would be the best way of going about it, though. I absolutely don't want to see codified roles and specialization to the degree that the tank can only perform tanking maneuvers, and the striker can only ever strike, because the loss of efficiency in performing an off-role task is so severe as to make it meaningless. A game is supposed to be about making interesting choices, and the choice of what to do - defend yourself/another, strike, nuke, control, heal - is a much more interesting choice than how to do it - which defensive power to spend your reaction on, which flavor of nuke to cast, and so on.

The metagame is not the game.

So instead of making thos emaneuvers the only options give the classes role specific powers as part of their scheme/style/tradition/whatever so while a thug rogue is a dedicated striker he's no worse at standing infront of the wizard than any other rogue.
Really, what they need to do is make Roles (similar to what we saw in 4E, apart of Feats). That way a Rogue can "Defend", a cleric can "Strike", a Paladin can "Control", etc.
Really, what they need to do is make Roles (similar to what we saw in 4E, apart of Feats). That way a Rogue can "Defend", a cleric can "Strike", a Paladin can "Control", etc.



Roles always existed D&D and some classes were better at some than others, but classes were not really forced into specific roles.  The game mechanics will define their own roles without specifically calling them out.  If I make a cleric I might not necessarily want him in a "leader role" if I can work the game mechanics into a defensive melee with defensive spell focus and more of a defender style as such.  I think dictated roles create stereotypes over creativity.

EDIT: I'm not saying you are dictating roles but that is a potential when naming roles come up.  The short version is mechanics already create roles with no need to specify those roles.
Well, if the Fighter get the Warlord's stuff, thenit would get options for this. Stuff like making an enemy you hit grant advantage to an ally of your choice, so the Rouge can mutilate them. I think casters need a better incentive to use spells on allies, too. Like polymorph, a Wizard can use it on the Fighter, but it's usually better to use it on a character that's weak in melee, such as, maybe, the Wizard, the weakest melee class. 
Really, what they need to do is make Roles (similar to what we saw in 4E, apart of Feats). That way a Rogue can "Defend", a cleric can "Strike", a Paladin can "Control", etc.



Or perhaps marking feats in such a way as to point out which role any given feat is better for, then letting the player build from those ideas (allowing multi-role hybridization, like a 4E wizard controller/striker).

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

There's another option here. Rather than dictating the roles of the current classes (any more than they already are, at least), they could introduce a new class or two that are very obviously the "team player" classes. These new classes could be designed from the ground up to describe party members that cannot function properly on their own, but if they get a party they hold their own like any other class. Then the designers could attract both the old school people that prefer a party of lone foxes, and also the socialites that like in-your-face group synergy.

(Somehow I managed to type that entire paragraph, and no 'W' words. Isn't that wonderful?)
It would be nice if some synergy options were tied to charisma (or, to a lesser extent, intelligence). That way bards and paladins and othes with the right feats or abilities could actually lead like they're supposed to.

Also, labeling feats or race/class feature choices by role--as damage, defense, leadership, control, exploration, knowlege, etc.--might be really nice. Magic/combat/expert is ok, but some meaningful labels might be more helpful in building characters and making sure that your party has most of its bases covered. 
I also believe that roles should be optional. So when I create a fighter I can either make him a better tank, a better striker or a better leader through my choice of feats and class abilities. If I chose to be a tank, I would be better at tanking, but not necessarily worse at dealing damage.

I realize that the abilities I talk about are already in the game, I was just saying that I think the game would be better if there were more of these abilities. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Sign In to post comments