The Gaming Den

I've been thinking for a bit about the combat mechanics of 2E and 4E.

2E Fighters: Bash a Stick at an Enemy every Fight
4E Fighters: Use several different types of Bashing Powers against Enemies until you run out, then use your At-Will Power

2E Wizards: Cast a bunch of spells until you run out then Bash an enemy with a stick or sling
4E Wizards: Cast a bunch of spells until you run out then Bash an enemy with your At-Will Power

So, was 4th an improvement compared to 2nd edition with respect to combat?

4e is probably more interesting with the weird movement effects and whatnot. Now, whether 4e was an improvement or not is an entirely different matter.

I'd say 4E for more interesting combat.

Of course, 2E was lots more interesting out of combat.

I would say you represent 4th pretty well there. All in all it comes down to at-wills. They do more than a normal stick would, so you use them over straight attacks. To me that wouldn't even be combat, just rolling dice and waiting for it to be over. pretty boring until you need an encounter or daily.

Also the grind in 4th. Halving monster HPs can help, but shouldn't be needed.

There was no tactic mechanics for terrain in 2nd, so you had to figure something out each time someone wanted to stab someone in the face while hanging from a chandelier. You could come up with those crazy stunts for any class. Something 4th seems to lack because how do you push someone back in three dimensional space? Push them through a rock floor? People fight in three dimensions, but combat only moves in 2?

It removes SoD with all the sliding effects that have no function in the third dimension. Would a kobold shift up one square?

Also as my preferred human fighter from 2nd, they would use a stick as a last resort. They would grab the nearest thing they could throw and hurl it to pin or slow down the advance of an enemy when the chance comes along. Didn't have to worry about damage, just the enemy loses that round of combat and move on. It can be done in 4th, but you have to check to see if it would cause some status effect, and figure out which one and why. Stun, slide, push, immobilize...does the enemy get a save? Is it a reflex save or attack or Fort? 2nd the table just flies and little ot no damage, but gives a few seconds to work out a tactic before further advance, or a chance to get into position for a pre-planned tactic.

4th just seems a bit more rigid, and loaded with saves to check all the time form status effects. Needless book-keeping for something that is already going to take a while to do. Keeping track of spent ammo is a lot easier.

Also the need for a map makes it feel like you have stopped playing D&D and paused to play a quick miniature wargame. Means you have to get back into the D&D groove after a fight, if not having another grind right after the last combat.

But then again all 4th RPGA events seem to be just combat grinds so.....

I'd have to say 2E. Mostly because it seems like it was easier to MTP bullshit your combat actions without the 4E structure and grid.

For a tactical/mini-interesting combat, 4e wins.

For a narrative-interesting combat, 2e wins.

For the first hour, 4e is better...but those 3+ hour sandpaper-a-thons detract a bit from the fun of the first hour.

4e wins the gold for interesting combats. I've heard that monsters can have too many hp, but that's an easier problem to fix than 2e's obscene imbalances and mechanical repetitiveness.

2E Fighters: Bash a Stick at an Enemy every Fight
4E Fighters: Use several different types of Bashing Powers against Enemies until you run out, then use your At-Will Power

Agreed. 4E has a lot more options here, although the battles do take longer.

2E Wizards: Cast a bunch of spells until you run out then Bash an enemy with a stick or sling
4E Wizards: Cast a bunch of spells until you run out then Bash an enemy with your At-Will Power

This is just silly though. You could say the same thing about 3E vs 4E Wizards, but it wouldn't be true unless you take a very vague stance on what "a bunch" is. 2E spellcasters, while having less endurance than 3E ones, get the same crazy, unbalanced, but actually interesting buffet of spells to choose from. 4E Wizards do not.


The Wizard is one place where there's been real shift from inter-encounter tactics to intra-encounter tactics. Pre-3E, spells per day were significantly limited, and many spells were basically "win most or all of this challenge". So the tactics was in deciding which encounters merited your limited supply of ammunition. In 3E, and moreso in 4E, scaricity is not a factor and the tactics are in which spell to use from round to round. So it's hard to say which makes combat more interesting - are we talking about one isolated combat, or the series of combats you face during an adventure?

I will say though, that the 2E Wizard is certainly more interesting out of combat.

For browbeating the DM and Magical Tea-Partying the situation into giving me what I want.... 2ed.

Fast thinking, good speaking ability, and force of personality could win me a fight in 2e sooner, and more effectively, than anything I could do in 3e or 4e.

Personally, I know that this is a bad thing, since it's immoral to have one person win fights for the group by describing how they'll "make the enemy helpless for one round", while the rest of the group is left with "attack for damage, try to kill the monster before it recovers".

Like how a fighter is a defender and his role is to sit and absorb damage in 4th, while the controllers and strikers do the real work.

So the fighter get to "attack for damage, try to kill the monster before it recovers" after the controller and striker classes have used "fast thinking, good speaking ability" to already win the fight.

Rather than a healbot, you have a meatshield class.

No, I mean, like, my 2ed Edition D&D fighter would insult the enemy, or throws a bag full of pitch at them from a bag of holding and blinds them, or picks up a piece of scenery with his retard Str and chuck it at the enemy, or use the terrain/scenery to trap or incapacitate an enemy (use a table or ladder like a battering ram, pin them to the wall with a voulge); or just leverage real life info and declare that my enemy was unable to walk after making a called attack to the enemies knees, dealing damage, and telling the DM that if a human knee is broken under 15 lbs of force, and my fighter's axe can chop a tree in half, then the giant is now completely immobile and on the ground, unable to attack anything that isn't immediately beside it.

So all the stuff that makes 2nd combat batter than 4th then. The fact players can come up with stuff rather than just doing at-wills. Gotcha.

Actually, all of those things are bad for the game. Very bad.

Kaelik and Ubernoob can easily explain why, and much better than I can.

I'm not going to touch 4e. Its combat bores me.

You also seem to fail to note that what I'm describing happened when I, as a player, described what was happening.

I wasn't roleplaying at all. I was powergaming to all getout, and I've got enough verbal ability to make a DM accept what I wanted to have happen in the game. Usually that was "win fights, don't waste my time attacking for damage".

So you abused the DM, rather than went into combat. You just skipped rolling the dice?

Otherwise, everything you mentioned would be perfectly fine.

The is nothing to stop you in second from overturning a table to pin an enemy. But it takes some rolling, not just being an asshole to the DM, otherwise you will find the table ends up on your character without any dice rolled for trying to be an ass to the DM.

From that RPGA event with the Cuthbert cleric or whatever for 3rd, I did just that. Impaled him with my javelin (WTF did WotC put javelin on a character sheet, nobody starts with that shit!) by jumping over a table as if it was a pike set for a charge, and that was how it was resolved. But man did I have some rolling to pull out some high DCs (16s~) to do it.

Capturing an enemy is more fun that Munchkining* them.

So anything other than just kill the enemy is more fun. So many things you can do with a captured enemy, so little time.

*Munchkin only has kick in the door, kill something, and take its stuff. There is no card to capture a monster/enemy with. (or wasn't in the last expansion I saw.)

Even if you make rolls, if one person's roll is worth more (especially if it's a lot more!), then it is still bad for the game.

If the person trying to throw a table is the only one trying to do it, then that persons roll will always be worth more, as it is the only roll that exists.

A called shot to break someones knees in 2nd was like criticals in 3rd. You not only had to roll the natural 20 first, but then had to roll again to make sure you hit for it to be a crit, or succeed the called shot.

It is the players choice what the character does, so let them try whatever. The group will work itself out in the long run if it causes problems with excessive called shots.

2nd over 4th. Here's why.

If you going to be spamming the same moves ad infinity, it works out much better when enemies die faster so that the novelty of auto attack is less likely to wear off and so that your character does not come off as a dumbass mook that needs to swing dozens of times to kill the mob.

Also if you are not an auto attacker you have actual options, whereas in 4.Fail you don't have the option to not be an auto attacker.

Also, 2nd edition actually threatens your characters, even though most of the threats are actually Death, No Saves placed by the DM to fuck with you for the lulz, 'Paranoia, except you're supposed to take it seriously' is still an improvement over 'Flurry of Fail, for all classes'.

Well....

When you're rolling a 2e Stat Check and your stats are over 20.... well, you usually tend to succeed. With a 20 to 25 str you're able to acheive a lot of lifting power, and if you say, grab a chair, you can throw it across a room no problem. Eventually really big things, like trees and tables come into throwing capability.

Of course, getting into actual melee was a bad idea, since it was all str that was being increased, with some Dex.

2e also had some very unbalanced things with regards to items.

My brother's Samurai had some pretty high AC; by level 8-10, he had upgraded to some magical fullplate; magical Kote (sheilds, that let you use both hands, give 1 points less AC; think really beefy bracers). Plus, his ring.

We at one point had war-elephanted and war-hounded a red dragon to death... so yeah, lots of treasure. One item from that hoard of loot was a +6 AC ring. The 100 result on the Armour Ring location.

Honestly... I've got the feeling that I should play 2e, but update many things using 3rd and Tome as a major point of reference. 2e is full of so much more crazy shit than 3rd ever will be.

I'm going to call a friend of mine, he was the one who owned all of our group's 2e books.

Nobody should have a STR or any other stat at 25 unless you are into high level play. Someone pooed the scrooch giving stats like that.

If you want to try 2nd similar to 3rd, try its version that became 3rd, and use Player's Options: Skills and Powers, and its character creation method with the skill points. Since you choose racial and class special abilities, it is more like picking feats from 3rd.

Throwing won't be a problem, but you still have to aim unless you are going for a distraction. There is where the real fun in figuring 2nd comes into play. Where you must trust the DM to consider all things including opposing wind speeds, to make it fair, and really exciting fights can happen when you put trust into the DM to allow you to try stunts like that and others that no rule exists for. You could have long drawn out fights, but so busy and having fun in them, you don't notice the time flying by while everyone is on the edge of their seat.

2e combat is not that fun if you are a Fighter with only a +x weapon and armor and fight some monster with no abilities, and 4e has more to offer.

But, 2e was never that. Spellcasters in 2e WERE combat past maybe level 3, and monsters with crazy abilities were the norm, and even fighters got magic items that cast spells. In comparison, 4e's system of "X damage, and maybe one of eight unique effects" looks like the "Children Under 8" version of DnD. Its really quite pathetic.

I have heard it for years, but disagree. Only those people trying to "win" the game ever took wizards to be X set of spells for combat only. Other players would get pissed at the same old spells, and not allow it. I never have seen a wizard just try to be Mr Combat.

While possible, I still never saw that of which people talk about, and as a fighter most times, I had a blast as a player in 2nd.

[/exit]

shadzar wrote:Nobody should have a STR or any other stat at 25 unless you are into high level play. Someone pooed the scrooch giving stats like that.

If you want to try 2nd similar to 3rd, try its version that became 3rd, and use Player's Options: Skills and Powers, and its character creation method with the skill points. Since you choose racial and class special abilities, it is more like picking feats from 3rd.

Throwing won't be a problem, but you still have to aim unless you are going for a distraction. There is where the real fun in figuring 2nd comes into play. Where you must trust the DM to consider all things including opposing wind speeds, to make it fair, and really exciting fights can happen when you put trust into the DM to allow you to try stunts like that and others that no rule exists for. You could have long drawn out fights, but so busy and having fun in them, you don't notice the time flying by while everyone is on the edge of their seat.

Well, our group tended to buy lots of extras for combat; so we could deal with a red dragon around level 10 or so.

I'm not sure if that's really "high level play", but that stuff happened in our games.

War elephants and warhounds were bought aplenty. We were often dealing with enemies very quickly, and usually faster than most adventures would expect. Part of that was that we had a large party, a good amount of which were hireling fighters. Usually it was sheer numbers that allowed our group to do what we did at lower levels.

4e has an out of combat?

-Crissa

Actually, all of those things are bad for the game. Very bad.

Maybe if poorly implemented they're bad, but they need to be there for the game not to suck. A system where you can't do anything outside the box could be the most perfectly balanced, streamlined system ever - and I would still have no interest in playing it.

It's like you've got a car, which a bit rusty, has engine problems, and is unsafe at high speed. Not ideal. But fixing the problem by removing the wheels makes the car useless. Even if you then rebuild the rest of it into prime condition.