In-Combat Recharge

[Username17]

So I think it's pretty clear that the Encounter/Per-Day paradigm of 4e is shit. And the problem is really that you end up using all your cool crap at the start of the fight and then there's nothing to do but fall back on using your biggest normal attack over and over again.

Combat should be more interesting after round 3. Especially if there are going to be Brute monsters and Bosses who take a long time to die (which people say that they want).

So what if there were abilities which could be used to set-up or refresh other abilities? As in, you walked into every battle with no mana, and there were abilities that used up mana and you picked up mana by using attacks that handed you mana if they beat effect threshold?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Sounds rather like the chronocross paradigm.

[JonSetanta]

We had this discussion before, and no agreement was found.

I have one:
Activating combo attacks, at least for warrior-types, could depend on the success of previous attacks. The option for beginning a combo chain would be large but versatile and each damaging hit on a foe 'unlocks' the use of a more powerful attack in the next round, or in some cases as a follow-up action.

No saving charges between battles, though. It's a Use It Or Lose It situation.

[Username17]

We had this discussion before, and no agreement was found.

I know. That's why I'm bringing it up after we have the 40+ round "I attack, you attack" fight with the Dragon in DDXP to compare ourselves with.

It is imperative that options change over time, not merely deplete into banality.

-Username17

[Bigode]

There's absolutely no reason to segregate warriors. What about "summons to hurt foe so he's more easily cursable -> curse -> drain the life outta them", for a very quick and shallow example? But I think we should also have some starting mana too.

Also: what about calling hp (as opposed to wounds) something like "action", "stamina" or "effort" and having abilities that consume it without them being the suck they're in most systems (since it's the wounds that actually kill)? Since the attrition paradigm'll run off wounding instead, that seems to fit fairly seamlessly.

[Orion]

Is there actualy any need for the options to change? Can't we just write abilities so that tactics naturally change?

The following tend to get used early:

--ranged attacks
-- area attacks
-- buffs
-- summons
--dots

The following tend to get used late:

--heals
-- attacks which hurt the user
-- high accuracy attacks (to finish off the wounded)

Plus, the system could easily have "natural combos," generally of the Debuff > Attack variety.

Instead of making Hellfire only uable on round 3, just give the Warlock Eerie Presence (CHA buff) and Sunbane Judgment (Fire Resistance Debuff)

Stunning Strike > Crushing strike also works.

[Manxome]

You can get a lot of strategic mileage out of blind, simultaneous choices, but unfortunately the logistics of that are a pain.

Requiring a chain of successful rolls to use your best attacks means that your average combat effectiveness in a long fight is going to drop precipitously as your target's defense rises, because they'll keep interrupting your chains and forcing you to use weak attacks. It'll also make anything that gives you a defensive advantage for one round comparatively powerful, because by using it once every 4 rounds you don't just block 1/4 of your enemy's attacks, you restrict them to their first 3 tiers of attacks.

And "I cycle through these 4 attacks in this order" is only marginally more interesting than "I always use attack X," anyway.

There are a couple of variants that might be more interesting, though:

One is that a successful attack, instead of enabling more attacks for you in the next round, restricts what you can do in the next round. Hitting someone with an Alpha Strike prevents you from using Alpha Strike next round; using a fire attack prevents you from using an ice attack next round; using a reckless attack prevents you from healing yourself next round, etc. That way, you're forced to take into account not only what's useful to do on the current round, but what might be useful to do next round (and what your enemy does this round gives you a clue as to what they're planning and what they'll be unable to counter next round).

Of course, that could be expressed as attack A enables attack B (disabled by defult) instead of attack C disables attack B (enabled by default), if that's more convenient. The key thing is that there isn't an expectation that you're setting up a specific attack chain, but are instead creating a liability.

The converse approach is for your actions to restrict (or disincentivize) what your opponent can do. If your opponent is chucking fireball after fireball, you activate your Freezing Aura attack that does radius cold damage, but as a side effect also weakens or nullifies fire attacks for the next round, forcing him to change tactics. If your enemies are focusing fire on one ally, you cast Reversal of Fortune to convert damage that ally takes in the next round into healing, forcing your enemies to switch targets. In this model, you might be able to Alpha Strike for 40 rounds in a row, but canny opponents will make sure that it's not a good idea.

[the_taken]

What was that term? Charge Meter? Happens in fighting games where at the beginning all you can do is punch, kick, block and jump? Then after exchanging blows, you can trade pieces of the Charge Meter to unleash a more powerful attacks.

Can be cinematically equated to someone saying "Alright. Time to get serious." or "I've been toying with you up 'till now."

If we really want, we can have characters have the option of doing nothing but charging their meter.

[virgil]

Yeah, I remember this conversation on the Wiki thread, and it kinda petered out. It does look like you can likely go longer than 3 rounds before going into auto-attack, because it feels like 4E hands out a new ability or two every single level, and they all seem to scale for the most part; which means as you go higher up, your per-encounter stamina can go higher and higher.

It feels that part of the problem with 4E is the whole-hearted leap into a single paradigm, per-encounter. The use of per-day stuff is just plain misguided, as it should be something for quest-related abilities like teleportation or long-term invisibility.

I've seen, in action, several different ways for a charge-up style to work.
Dragonball Z: You don't fight effectively unless you flat-out do nothing offensive for one or more rounds. Whether it be by layering the buff effects (including just casting polymorph into a remorhaz), or just having your moves have a cast time.
If/Then Attacks: Some attacks don't work unless the target is suffering from a certain condition, whether it be flat-footed for a sneak attack, hit by a different attack for a one-two punch, whatever.
Pavlov's Scooby Snacks: A longer scale version of the If/Then Attack. You gain charges/tokens/mana whenever you perform some action that fits the behavior of your ability, which you can then spend in that combat for a more powerful ability. Iron Heroes uses this, I've seen a variant for FUDGE magic that uses this, and several fighting games out there use this.
Captain Planet Maneuver: This is for combo maneuvers, requiring multiple players. When they coordinate their position relative to their opponent, they can each spend an action to create a single effect. This is ideal if combined with the the If/Then Attack paradigm, so they need to 'season' their target properly before using this alpha-strike.

[Voss]

Actually, Frank, the really ironic thing is that quite a few 4e monsters have a recharge ability on their encounter powers. Roll a d6, on a 4+ (or 5+), boom, they can do it again.

Players? Players just don't get that shit.
On the other side of it... some classes have really good at-will powers. The sample warlock can attack reflex, will or fortitude all the time, and the will and fortitude attacks have side effects (invisible to target or slow). The damn ranger attacks at an extra +4 all the damn time, with one of the highest damage weapons in the sample set. (as is eldritch blast, oddly enough)

The fighter? Well, his at wills suck. Cleave is trivial, and Tide of Iron is so situational you often don't even care.

[virgil]

Hmm...what if you were to do the one-two combo punch method, but go deeper and more complex? I'm not saying having this one move that doesn't work unless you hit with a very specific chain of attacks, but a full-on tree. You have a list of two or three spells that do more damage if you used magic missile on a creature, and for your third spell you have two options (for each of the three).

For example: You blast a creature with magic missile. If you blast the same creature with scorching ray, acid arrow, or frost bolt, then those specific spells do more damage of their type. Let's say you used scorching ray, and you cast another spell within the round. You can now either cast grease to have them be on fire (really good DoT) while they slip and slide OR you can cast frost bolt to get an even larger damage buff because of the temperature gradient. This could even be a form of the Captain Planet Maneuver to be done in one round if you have a team of wizards.

And if they're too much to have constantly available, have some kind of limiter on how often you can use any particular combo (or even combo tree). You could have combos be the per-encounter stuff, and all of the individual units of a combo be at-will; or something, as I'm just pulling ideas out my bum.

[Crissa]

I'd rather attacks not be simplistic synergies, because it does get boring needing to apply the appropriate pre-patches to win... Because often that means if you just did the same attack three times you'd also win, instead of winning in one stroke.

Mathematically, I'd like it if the chance for a completely deadly attack to start from 'very little chance' to 'almost certain' as a slow, steady curve - whether or not your current, standard attacks are doing damage.

And I'd also like the 'almost certain' attacks to only be blockable by tactics or class ability. That way as the attacks get bigger and more deadly, they can be cycled through or skipped tactically because the opponent proves them tough enough.

If abilities require 'have attacked three times,' or 'has been hit three times by allies,' or 'trip once' or 'needs to be blinded' as prerequisites, I think we'd be on the right track. We should make abilities that not only will be seen as automatic combos - but which then can be used in combos with other characters' abilities as well.

-Crissa

[MartinHarper]

1204579706[/unixtime]
It is imperative that options change over time, not merely deplete into banality.

I like card-based systems. The randomness simulates the ebb and flow of the winds of magic (or whatever) for sorcery-types, and the different openings opponents offer for sword-types. It removes the attack macro problem. NPCs use whatever powers the GM wants them to.

Global rules: Place card-powers into a deck of 20+. To use a card-power, discard the card. After initiative, draw seven cards. Non-card powers can be used at any time. If no more cards left in deck, shuffle discard pile together.

Warlock non-card power: Powers of the Shameless: Move action. The warlock insults a friend or foe. The warlock may then discard their current hand and draw seven more cards.

A Warlock 1 constructs the following deck:

Fires of Naraka (x8)
Fire bursts from underneath the feet of the Warlock's enemies.
Standard action. Constitution vs Dodge. Does fire damage. Does +1 damage for every Fires of Naraka card in the Warlocks hand.

Fire Resistance (x4)
The warlock and his allies gain strength from fire.
Play when taking fire damage: fire damage is halved. Draw two cards.
Move action: give this card to an ally.

Pact of Grief (x4)
Misery loves company
Standard action. Charisma vs Insight. Curse: attacks against the warlock also attack the cursed creature.

Pact of Envy (x4)
Don't you wish your powers were hot like mine?
Standard action. Charisma vs Willpower. Curse: target creature takes damage whenever it uses a non-Narakan power.

[Voss]

Ugh. If someone tries to make me play with randomized powers, I will beat them to death with their own rulebook. You might as well just save time and flip a coin to see who wins.

[the_taken]

1204588762[/unixtime]]

1204579706[/unixtime]
It is imperative that options change over time, not merely deplete into banality.

I like card-based systems. The randomness simulates the ebb and flow of the winds of magic (or whatever) for sorcery-types, and the different openings opponents offer for sword-types. It removes the attack macro problem. NPCs use whatever powers the GM wants them to.

Global rules: Place card-powers into a deck of 20+. To use a card-power, discard the card. After initiative, draw seven cards. Non-card powers can be used at any time. If no more cards left in deck, shuffle discard pile together.

Warlock non-card power: Powers of the Shameless: Move action. The warlock insults a friend or foe. The warlock may then discard their current hand and draw seven more cards.

OK. This is just plain fvcking genius. I vote for this.

[Jacob_Orlove]

I'd like to cast my vote strongly in the refresh camp. Let's take it to the extreme, where our set up/refresh ability is "do nothing".

Scenario one: (set up): either use nothing but normal attacks, or do nothing to set up a special move. With this paradigm, you only ever have one choice to make: normal move, or pause-special.

Scenario two (refresh): either use normal attacks, or unleash a special move. Then, either use normal attacks, or do nothing to refresh the special move. Here you get two choice points: first, whether to use a special move immediately or hold off for more favorable circumstances, and second, whether to refresh your move once you've used it.

Actually, though, a mix of both would give you maximum choices, which would be best. But if we're going with one or the other, definitely refresh over set-up.

[Orion]

But the chain wouldn't go through the same everytime.

Against imps, you don't debuff -- just go straight to hellfire. Again Brutes, you MUST ebuff to have a decent chance to hitting.

Against zombies, you use the movemenet debuff to slow em down, then use the ranged attacks as your staples.

Against Tigermen (high attack, hide move, low defense) you fire a couple arows to pick off the front runners, then switch to defenive melee abilities.

Some enemies resist Shadow, to your resistance debuff won't effect them. Sometimes your resistance debufs chains into your friend's flame fists instead of your own hellfire.

[MartinHarper]

The randomness in what powers are available should be large enough that I don't say "I use Fires of Naraka again, like I did the last ten turns". It should also be small enough that it doesn't make combat into a coin flip. I think that's achievable. If necessary we can reduce the randomness involved in damage and hit/miss to compensate.

----

Here's an example for the Assassin caste:

Non-card power: Dexter Strike.
Not as sinister as other strikes.
Standard action. Dexterity vs Tenacity. Deals damage. Draw two cards even on a miss.

Fade to Black (x4)
The assassin melts into the shadows.
Standard action. Draw three cards, and gain stealth.

Strike at Weakness (x4)
I hit its weak point for massive damage.
Standard action. Requires stealth. Dexterity vs Perception. Deals lots of damage.

Cripple (x4)
I hit its weak point for massive inconvenience.
Standard action. Dexterity vs Perception. Deals damage. Target is slowed.

Garrotte (x4)
Let's hope the neck is a weak point.
Standard action. Dexterity vs Dodge. Deals damage. Deals more damage if target doesn't escape the Garrotte (standard;Strength vs Tenacity) during its turn.

Anti-life Equation (x4)
Poison + Dagger = Death.
Play when an attack with a bladed weapon hits. Intelligence vs Tenacity. Deals ongoing poison damage.

[Voss]

Meh. It doesn't matter how random it is or isn't. A system that takes player choice away is bad. Its one thing not to be able to stabitty stab someone because you aren't in melee. Its another to not be able to stabbitty stab because the randomizer says you can't take that action now.

[Manxome]

Are you suggesting that no one should be able to play this RPG unless they print up a set of cards appropriate to their character's powers first? Or maybe that you should have a bunch of generic cards that just say "card #37" and a giant look-up table that says which is which for each character? Or that you should write down notes with a pencil to keep track of your hand and simulate drawing from a deck with dice rolls?

Any way you slice this, the logistics of card-based combat are considerably beyond what is typical for a tabletop RPG, especially if you aren't planning on including all the pre-printed cards you'll ever need inside the box when you sell it. You're very quickly going to end up with something that looks more like a CCG than a traditional RPG.


*And yes, I realize that Darkest Night requires you print up a bunch of cards. But it's very unlike a traditional RPG, and you don't need to print up new cards every time you advance a level or start a new character.

[MartinHarper]

I select the 20 cards I want in my Warlock deck. I print them off and cut them out. I also print a Warlock character sheet, which includes the rules for my non-card powers.

Alternatively, I go into a store and buy a non-random Warlock deck of 60 cards, which comes with a Warlock character sheet. I select 20 cards from that.

If I want to play a Warlock/Assassin, I buy a Warlock deck and an Assassin deck, and pick 20 cards from them both. I use either the Warlock character sheet or the Assassin character sheet, depending on which set of non-card powers I want.

[JonSetanta]

I like the comparison to powers-as-cards too, being a Magic fan myself.

But one flaw I noticed with the setup of both x4 (or x8) instances and 20 cards total: since the pike 'resets' when empty, one could simply divide the total number by 4 and nothing would change. Simple division.
However, this is possible only because the powers all come in quadruplets. If one power came alone and another was x3, such a setup would be better with 20 cards, but as by Martin's suggestion it could accomplish the same with less.
Just to point that out, y'all.

[Shatner]

A mana system, like Frank mentioned earlier, would be a good idea and not necessitate successive attack combinations. Instead it simply acts as a timer for when the iteratively bigger attacks can be made. So combat begins and everyone has zero mana/battle focus/tactic points/whatever you want to call it. Every time your attack causes a wound or hits or achieves some pre-specified goal you gain a point of mana. So, you start combat throwing your zero-mana attacks (magic missile, sword stab, whatever) and in subsequent rounds you can move up to the costlier attacks (fireball, power attack, arrow volley, uber-hex, etc.).

I like it, just keep the metric for accumulating mana simple. However, this leads to other problems that need to be addressed. One is whether making a four-mana attack, for example, should deplete your mana total or not. Are you continually building up a reserve and then expending during the course of combat or are you unlocking better attacks for the duration of combat? In other words, if a Warlock has accumulated five mana, does the five mana Petrifying Gaze attack drop him back to zero or is he still at five?

Having the mana reserve deplete keeps the fight going longer as each couple of rounds the combat-maneuvers crescendo with cannons then return to pea-shooters. However, this can encourage people to do nothing but perform their mana-free attacks over and over until they save up enough to unleash their omega strikes, then they go back to the weenie attacks; ignoring their mid-range attacks entirely. In other words, it could encourage someone to keep casting magic missiles until they can throw a Finger of Death attack instead of mixing the occasional scorching ray attack in, since the scorching ray costs mana and magic missile does not.

Having the mana reserve not deplete means each attack in the player's arsenal will have it's moment. You start off with magic missile at mana-zero then fire off Scorching Ray at mana-one, fireball at mana-two and finally phantasmal killer at mana-three. However, once you've reached your highest level, you have very little incentive to do anything except spam your omega strike. This makes the early stages of combat a slap-fest and the late stages of combat very lethal.

Possible ways to balance the two different schemas are:
1) have more powerful attacks generate more mana if successful. Sure Bleeding Wound costs two mana but if you pull it off you stand to gain three or more mana back.
2) have cool off times on alpha strikes force players to fall back to their beta strikes.
3) put mana costs on some sort of sliding scale. Make low-level attacks accumulate mana and high-level attacks deplete mana. So you have a character with 5 levels of abilities. Level one and two abilities accumulate mana, level three neither costs nor gains mana and levels four and five deplete it.
4) make some sort of save or check to maintain the current mana-level where the higher level stuff has a higher chance of failure, thus dropping you to the previous level (or more if you badly fail the check)
5) ??? I'm sure there are others...

Another concern is accumulating mana for the white mage. Since they aren't competing against a foe directly, how do we determine if they're combat action was successful enough to allow them to go from Bull's Strength to Haste? I would make buffs automatically be considered "successes" and further the character's mana generation. I say this because in-combat buffs are reactive and not generally as productive combat actions as, say, disabling your opponents directly. Hmmm, the same about indirect disabling, like dropping Walls of Earth or releasing a cloud of smoke, can be asked...

[CatharzGodfoot]

If this issue is mixing things up and keeping them interesting, just make sure that every character has abilities which are more or less useful in certain situations but approximately equal in power, and don't allow too much specialization.

An extreme example is how bows are really good for attacking from a distance and total shit in melee. Another is how some spells are hard to get off when you're grappled. If you use fires of Naraka when you're facing two guys, blood calls blood when you're facing one, and shadows of doubt when you're helping another guy flank, that'll keep a combat interesting.

There's really no problem with n/encounter-type abilities (spend a minute to refresh) if those abilities are things like nets/tanglefoot bags or grenades. You probably won't want to use them more than twice a combat, because other than that they aren't tactically relevant

[ckafrica]

I might get flogged for suggesting this, but something similar to (but obviously not the same as) mearls' token system from Iron Heroes where certain actions allows you accumulate tokens that allow you to pull out your better effects. Perhaps stream line it so you only have one token pool and each class has different ways which they can get them back and/or certain actions give you more and others use them up.