Community

May 29, 2012 -- 1:18PM, FalconGK81 wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 9:35AM, lacodia wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 9:08AM, robertmfreeman wrote:

This may just be because of the playtest adventure, but there really isn't much terrain for the characters to hide behind, and unless I'm missing something, there's nothing (aside from the defender cleric) to keep opponents from moving around the characters to where they can see the person behind cover.

Yes I think your group is missing something. The fighter and or clerics should inform the DM that they are trying to protect the Wizard by prevent opponents from moving past them. You don't need a mechanic for this. The party just informs the DM that they are forming say a wedge with the Wizard in the far back. Back in the day we'd just say call it the standard formation and everyone understood what that meant.

A good DM will understand the party's intent and simply say 'ok', or if for some reason one of the opponents is dead set on getting to the Wizard while ignoring a possible 'free' attack by the fighter the DM may call for an opposed roll.

Either way, the Wizard stays alive if he cowers far in the rear as befitting his puny frame.   

Why is this way of doing it (ie. "Just say you're defending the wizard then everything is fine") better than having rules for marking/opportunity-attacking monsters that try to bypass you for the wizard?

So I wouldn't say that it is better in every situation but I do think it is better in many or most situations, especially simpler combat situations that don't require a grid to keep track of everything that is going on.

Back in the day, back in the 1E and 2E days I often wished for a 4E style way to resolve combat, and in fact I think that is exactly what 3.0E/3.5E tried to achieve -but ultimately failed to do that, not as a version of the game, just as a really good way to resolve combat. 

The problem with 4E combat mechanics is that they are too involved and sophisticated for every situation. Those heavy rules slow down the game, they detract from the role playing aspect of the game, they make it more difficult to learn and master the rules, and they put an undue focus on D&D combat at the expense of role playing.

So this is what I am imagining for 5E, and I hope the game designers are listening and concur.

1. Give me a simple core set of rules like a streamlined 2E version that we can use to play a cooperative role playing game, that will resolve combat situations like the example above that I gave.

2. Give me a module or set of modules that we can whip out which graph onto the core system, a set of combat maneuvers just like in 4E using the grid so that we can resolve more complex combat situations such as a boss encounter.

My vision is to use the core rules for the day to day playing ( or week to week), but when a special encounter comes up I can say to the players, "Do to the complexity and importance of this final showdown between you and the Lich Lord, we'll be using the combat rules contained in the Advanced Combat Rules module (i.e. 4E) to play today's game session. Your characters sheets don't need to be modified but I'll go over the additional rules like using the grid, Attacks of Opportunity, grabbing, restrained, pull, push, slide, expanded action types, Triggers, etc."

For a new character all of these additional advanced rules would be new and complicated, but they'd already have the basics down, and for experienced players it would be old hat. The play would slow way down for this session, but that's ok because it's not every session that we're using the advanced rules,and because we're using them sparingly it also isn't detracting from the much more important role playing aspect of the game. No more D&D players thinking that the game is a miniatures wargame.

May 29, 2012 -- 6:23PM, lacodia wrote:

The problem with 4E combat mechanics is that they are too involved and sophisticated for every situation. Those heavy rules slow down the game, they detract from the role playing aspect of the game, they make it more difficult to learn and master the rules, and they put an undue focus on D&D combat at the expense of role playing.

That's a User Error, not a system error.  I ran a game with 10 players and exactly one half were youngsters (11-14), the other half were parents.  Combat never took long.  The rules never slowed things down.  They didn't detract from roleplaying in the least.  The inability to roleplay because you have a magic sword is a player problem.  First Edition didn't even have any non-weapon prof until later on and you could still roleplay.  First Edition had AC adjustment tables for each weapon and you could still roleplay.

If 5 parents, 5 children, and 1 gamemaster can figure it out then there's a player problem, not a system problem. 

May 29, 2012 -- 6:37PM, AtomicPope wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 6:23PM, lacodia wrote:

The problem with 4E combat mechanics is that they are too involved and sophisticated for every situation. Those heavy rules slow down the game, they detract from the role playing aspect of the game, they make it more difficult to learn and master the rules, and they put an undue focus on D&D combat at the expense of role playing.

That's a User Error, not a system error.  I ran a game with 10 players and exactly one half were youngsters (11-14), the other half were parents.  Combat never took long.  The rules never slowed things down.  They didn't detract from roleplaying in the least.  The inability to roleplay because you have a magic sword is a player problem.  First Edition didn't even have any non-weapon prof until later on and you could still roleplay.  First Edition had AC adjustment tables for each weapon and you could still roleplay.

If 5 parents, 5 children, and 1 gamemaster can figure it out then there's a player problem, not a system problem. 

I'm sorry but I don't' agree, 4E's combat is significantly more involved than 1E or 2E with a lot more rules, not to mention figuring out all of those powers, and using miniatures on a grid can only slow things down. Besides, that's been my experience playing for 4E.

May 29, 2012 -- 9:30AM, legionof1 wrote:

i played the wizard just yesterday, it does need intelligent, non 4e play to not take too many hits. In 4e the great majority of characters at any lvl could stand out in the open disregarding enemy output. Even a powerful pack of mobs focus firing was not a grave threat most times.

the playtest as it stands is a call to earlier editions. Anyone taking more then a few hits is very bad. Coordination and environment usage is a must. Do hide around corners. Turn over tables and cower behind them. The module takes place in a cave network most of the time bottlenecks and corners are easy to come by. Use them. Also caves of chaos is a multi level, many in game day task. Do not expect to play it like an LFR module.

A few specific suggestions. Prone is not a big limiter on movement it only cost 5' or one square on tac grid. Voluntarily fall on your face to force disadvantage on ranged attackers. Prone can also make a knee high boulder full cover. Full cover is +5 ac and dex saves toss disadvantage on that and all the ranged attackers in the module will find something easier to shoot. Also coup de grace the downed wizard is not something the DM should do in any edition. it only really makes sense if the foe knows for a fact healing magic is present and available or the mob that does it is very evil and use it for dramatic villain effect("I shall take one of you with me at least." /maniacal death laughter)  its not good dming to remove chances for player success.

I don't know what system you were playing but it probably wasn't 4e. Enemies were dangerous, especially with the updated damage numbers.