A Game of Musical Squares

(Apologies if this section is dry. More dramatic ranting at the end of the article).

Combat in D&D 4E revolves around three abstract concepts: hit rolls, combat status and moving around the squares. Hit rolls and combat status we are all familiar with, especially if anyone has played any iteration of Final Fantasy (“Blind” reduces your chance to hit, “Silenced” prevents you from casting spells). One of the biggest additions is to ability to shift, push or pull opponents or allies on the board. Paladins can teleport to an ally in peril to absorb a blow; avengers (read: ninjas) can suddenly vanish into the thin air and pops out next to a marked opponent and wizards can send foes flying with cracks of thunder.

This is not a new concept, at least in the realms of tactical RPGs for the computers. Dynasty Tactics and Romance of the Three Kingdoms 12, featured the ability to push enemy armies into traps or to lure them into craftily setup combo chains. Disagora for the PS allows you to throw (yes throw!) your allies at an enemy to damage them.

For D&D 4E, forcing enemies to move squares is a big highlight. Certain high-level powers allow melee classes to move and attack, and make another move and attack again if certain conditions are met. Coupled with Attack of Opportunities, pulling a foe next to you so that you get a free attack on him if he should turn his attention on someone else is neat. In addition, now that certain powers can create zones that afflicts penalties and cause damage, the push, pull and shift mechanics make combat in D&D 4E more tactical than before.

Sleek and Slimmer

Having considered the picture of D&D 4 combat, let take a look at the mechanics. Like its forebears, D&D 4E draws a line between the role-playing bits and the crunchy combat parts, however many of the familiar elements are streamlined.

Gone are the charts for Basic Attack Bonus and Saves – they have been replaced by the Attributes itself. A Fortitude save is one-half of your level plus your Strength or Constitution modifier, whichever it is better. Attack rolls are based on the Attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Charisma etc.) itself. This is one thing worthy of note, because personally I like it. It is more elegant and makes the system easier to understand.

There are some new concepts to grasp, though; saving throws are totally revamped, powers come with three possible “cooldown” – at-will, encounter and daily, and healing is now a whole new ball game. Suffice to say, those make D&D 4E different enough from D&D 3.5 to have an integer increment in its version number.

So how does it fares?

Let’s talk about D&D 4E combat in terms of as a combat system; that is, let’s forget that it is part of a role-playing game. On paper, from reading the rules, it feel greats. Instead of just a “my BAB is higher than your AC, suckers”, the system encourages the players to think carefully about their moves. There are a lot of black and white cases in the game – many powers inflict damage even on a miss (usually half), and there’s no ways to resist someone from trying to pull you into an elemental volcano or a gateway straight to hell. This encourages players and DMs alike to think harder during combat, instead of relying on high stats and good rolls.

As a closed system, D&D 4E combat succeeds in getting rid of grey areas. I think the designers have hunted down every possible grey areas in combat so that a DM rarely has to “wing” it. However, I don’t really approve of how the grey areas are dealt with; usually the system just gun for the simplest solution. For example, if a zone containing raging hell fire intersects with a zone of the bitterest winter storm, nothing happens. They don’t affect each other at all.

The System in Context of a RPG

I have discussed what I think of the combat system as a ‘stand-alone combat resolution system’, akin to a war-game and such. It’s time to realise that this system is part of a role-playing game too, and I would humbly submit my notion: it’s horrible. Mainly because the system is designed to be closed, which could run automatically by itself and the DM could be a human CPU. (Some may notice that I have been really rigid and restrained while discussing the system as a combat system. It’s to be fair to its design. Now I would try to be more…eh, dramatic).

Of course., there are advantages to a closed system. It’s consistent. It encourages mastery of the system, which pleased achievement-oriented and competitive people. It removes GMs’ fiat which could be a bad thing at times, and reduces the number of times the GM has to come up with spot rules on the go.

However, there are various problems with a closed system for a RPG. First, the suspension of disbelief. If the combat system is just a board game, just a miniature game, fine, I’ll don’t think we need the suspension of disbelief. But this is a role-playing game, where you are supposed to use your imagination, yet the game is so rigid and black and white. There this which boggles me to no end – a druid can choose a wild-shape, no bigger than her size, but regardless whether you choose to be a fericious saber-tooth turtle, or a bear, your stats do not change. You can shapeshift to become a panther and still have a lousy Dexterity of 9. Good luck running, don’t trip over yourself.

Likewise, the rules concerning zones. In Lord of the Rings Online, certain creatures can throw fire at you, leaving a pool of fire in the wake of its flame breath. Now the Loremaster has a skill called “Gust of Wind”, which animation shows the Loremaster conjuring a burst of air at its location. I always think it will be cool if that could put out fires on the ground (the Rune-keeper has an AoE ice attack; it would be cool if that would put out fires too). Computers are limited by their programming, so it would be hard to implement such things (though Nethack’s “the developers thought of every situation!” tried admirably) .

I think it is kind of sad while, for me personally, that for a paper and pen role-playing game, we are asked to switch off our brain when it comes to grey areas. It is a great chance for players to think out of the box, and for a GM to see what innoative solutions his players can come out with. But the rules just say “those zones don’t interfere with each other”. Other examples include “the environment don’t affect the manifestation of powers”, which mean even if a typhoon hits the combat area, that zone of fire is not going out.

The human brain can be engaged to handwave those rigid rules away – “magic , or some other power is sustaining the field of fire and so they are immune to the environments”. That is valid; I just think it is sad – when I think computer role-playing games should have more of the flexibility of its pen and paper ancestors, pen and paper RPGs are taking on more of its more limited counterparts’ aspects.

To be fair to the D&D 4E combat system, for it to work some of those rules have to be black and white, or it would be just too darn complicated. For example, take the pushing mechanics. The same crack of thunder that send a small scrawny goblin flying three steps away has the same effects on a gigantic stone troll. But to factor in the weight and size of the target would mean more rules, making the combat less playable. Likewise, is there a good solution to the overlapping of zones, and having the environments affecting spells and powers and what-nots? I’m sure there is, but it would involve either lots of rulings, or player-DM negotiation, which is not desirable considering D&D 4E’s design goals.

(What are D&D 4E’s design goals? From reading the book, I believe it is to create a role-playing game that is consistent and fair, and which targets a demographics of role-players who are competitive in nature. So the DM’s power are naturally curbed).

Granted, nowhere in the rules did it say that the DM is not allowed to wing in a certain situation, but from how the grey areas are handled (or from the lack of grey areas), I infer that DMs are bound to the same combat rules as the players, and deviation is not encouraged.

Sustaining Belief in an Imagined Reality

To sum up how I feel about D&D 4E combat system, I would just say this “Effective, but artificial”. As a combat system, it works. It encourages thinking and planning your moves. But it is rigid and asks players at times to leave imagination at the doorstep. True, there are flavour text to the powers. Those text means nothing though. Being ‘scared’ is just the target moving away from you. Any other implications of being terrified at the enemies which are not cover by the rules does not count (I don’t think it is possible to persuade a terrified enemy to surrender). But it is a closed box. Your ice storm is not going to put out fire summoned by a warden, and if you shapeshifted into a hawk it doesn’t you can fly. You get things done the way the rules say.

For example, imagine the Balrog in combat with some PCs. A halfing fighter manages to push the great and mighty Balrog away with a power and he can do it because the rules say so. It’s like Lu Bu managing to trick Zhuge Liang, or Drizzt being tripped by a halfing. The DM can come up with explanations each time when those things happen, but honestly if I am the DM, I would stop trying after the third time. The system just messes up expectations. For example, in a computer game, it is like I design a gigantic stone troll but no matter how tough he looks on the screen, it doesn’t matter because in the database I gave him a Strength of 3.

This is why I say the system is artificial. So that the system can be fair, characters could be balanced and the DM and players are on equal term, it is a necessary evil. However this is not my style of play. It also lead me to imagine that D&D 5E could be just a board game like Descent, where the DM just set up the enemies according to some rules, and shuffle a deck of random Skill Encounters card which comes for a particular quest.

What I admire though, is how D&D 4E become streamlined from D&D 3.5. What I would leave out would be the entire rigid design of the power systems and the “What you see is not what you get” feel.

On Issues of Portability

Another flaw of the entire system is the ‘shift, pull and push’. It is great for the epic feel of the game, the anime-combat style akin to Final Fantasy Advent Children. However, if you watch enough espiodes of Mythbusters, you would know that anything that send you flying away for more than 6 metres is going to be painful. This system may not work well in other genres, such as modern warfare. Shotguns don’t push anyone at all, and a grenade don’t send people flying (they fill you with little sharpnels). Of course it is a non-issue now, for this is D&D, not D20. It’s not a generic system after all.

Final Words

If I am to play a game of D&D 4E, I will defintely be asking for permission to wing certain aspects of the game. Martial powers which push creatures would take creature size into consideration. Zones and the environment would interfere with certain powers.  It may make the game less consistent, less fair, but for my players and me, it may be more fun.

The powers are really bloated now. I think there might be a way to condense a class to just a few core powers. Classes would be the topic of my next article on D&D 4E.

Oh yes, before you comments, do take note I am usually a narrator GM who prefer rules-lite, wing-it games like Fate and Nobilis. That’s the context where I am coming from.