Total Insanity- D&D 4E Rules in Review

I’m something of a ‘mechanics guy’. The ‘crunchy bits’ of how a game functions intrigues me, both from a simulationist (how well the mechanic matches reality) and a gamist (how well-balanced the mechanic is within the framework of the game) perspective.

Often, mechanics that try and match reality tend to be somewhat over-complicated and even broken- simply put, the universe has a lot more variables running at any given time than anyone can keep track of.

So the best, and most balanced mechanics, are the simplest ones. And usually, the mechanics most divorced from ‘reality’.

At both ends of the scale you get a lot of arguments. One of the features of 4e design is that the rules are made as simply as possible, using something that has been defined as “exception-based” design. There is a set of basic rules, which regulate the game. Unless a game element goes out of it’s way to say it changes these rules, you always default to the basic rules.

For example:

“An attacker has combat advantage if flanking it’s target.”

“A Dire Wolf has combat advantage if an ally is adjacent to it’s target.”

Whenever you hear someone say “specific trumps general”, that’s what they’re talking about. In any case where you have a specific game element saying it does something that contradicts the rules, it wins. This is a concept M:tG players are very familiar with.

The rules tend to be fairly easy to grasp, and, I must admit, are very balanced. However, as a result, there’s often an odd disconnect between what a game mechanic claims is happening vs. what actually does happen.

My first encounter with this occurred when I read the ‘flavor text’ of Natural Terrain Understanding, a Utility Power that allows me to grant my allies a tactical benefit. The text claimed I was pointing out ways my allies could use the terrain to their advantage.

Which is fine, save for the fact that my Ranger somehow lacked the ability to shut up and just use his knowledge to give himself a free shift and bonus AC!

This sort of thing trips up my brain from time to time, as I’m used to more simulationist gaming. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with 4e’s approach- the game is easier to learn than past games I’ve encountered, and a lot of fun to play.

But it does have it’s quirks, and that’s what I’m here to talk about today.

1)Turns and Rounds:
There’s some confusion here among a lot of players, and the reason is that these terms have been applied in very different ways during the history of Dungeons and Dragons. When I first learned the game, a “round” was about 6 seconds of time, in-universe. Everyone takes an action during the round.

A “turn” was actually ten rounds of combat, ie, a full minute.

These days, the definition of a round remains the same, but the definition of a turn is vastly different. When someone acts during a round, they are taking their “turn”. So it’s my turn, your turn, the monster’s turn- all of these will make up a full combat round.

Thus an ability that can be used “once per round” is just that. It’s used, and cannot be used again until my next turn.

An ability that can be used “once each turn” can be used on each turn, mine, yours, etc., if it’s conditions come up. One example of this is immediate actions vs. opportunity actions: I can make an immediate reaction/interrupt once per round, but I can make an opportunity action once each turn.

Well ok, there is one caveat to that- immediate reactions, interrupts, and opportunity actions can’t be made on your own turn. You’d be surprised how often that comes up!

This is what made such a ruckus when errata was applied to the Rogue’s Sneak Attack ability. Sneak Attack damage could now be applied once during each turn. That meant if you were granted an attack during someone else’s turn, and you met the requirements of Sneak Attack, you could apply the bonus damage!

Now granted, outside of an Opportunity Attack, this doesn’t come up often, but it did make certain powers that allowed a Rogue to attack when it wasn’t their turn (like Riposte Strike) look a lot better!

An oddball situation came up the other day when I was running my first adventure. I had a player test-driving the new Sentinel Druid build, complete with a big old Bear for an animal companion. As written, when the Druid uses their Move action, the Bear takes a Move action at the same time.

Both Bear and Druid were attempting to move past the same opponent. The Druid had the Bear just run straight on ahead, and the Brute took the free hit. Then I noticed the Druid was using their movement to veer around the Brute.

“You don’t have to do that, you know. He can’t make another Opportunity Attack this turn.”

Game play stopped as everyone gave me their best “what huh?!” expression. Again, gamist rules vs. simulationist! But there are ways you can use this to your advantage. For example, let’s say you have a ranged character with an enemy adjacent to them. Normally, if they make their ranged attack, they’ll provoke an Opportunity Attack.

However, let’s say a friendly Warlord provokes an attack on the same enemy by walking past him. If the enemy takes the attack, the Warlord can turn around and use Direct the Strike on the ranged hero- allowing him to fire a ranged basic attack without reprisal (well, from that enemy at least)!

It sounds confusing, and the reason is that it goes against our expectations of what should happen in combat. But it’s an interesting tactic, simply because your enemies probably won’t expect it!

2)Free Action Attack Powers

Some months back, errata was published that limited the use of Free Actions. I’ll quote the Rules Compendium version here:

“A creature can take a free action to use an attack power only once per turn.” -Rules Compendium, page 194

This fixed some problems, but creates strange ‘holes’ in the rules. One of the sweeping changes made with Essentials errata and the Rules Compendium was the definition of powers. Specifically, the Rules Compendium states on page 89 that there are two types of Powers.

Attack Powers: these powers are used to damage or hinder others. Some attack powers have beneficial effects as well.

Utility Powers: these powers have a variety of uses, including granting bonuses. Some are useful only outside combat, and others are useful only in combat. Some utility powers can be used in any situation.

Prior to this update, there existed other kinds of powers, such as Feature Powers, such as those granted by your Class. Now, however, all Powers are simply one or the other. The Rules Compendium goes on to say that “If a power’s type isn’t stated, the power is an attack power if it includes an attack roll or it deals damage. Otherwise, it is a utility power.”.

If you care about how the rules work in a vacuum*, then these changes can wreak a lot of havoc.

*of course, no game exists in a vacuum. You have a DM, who serves to arbitrate the quirks of the rules, and, of course, your fellow players, who have intelligence enough to notice when something has gone awry, and can reach a consensus on making an ad hoc ruling they will be comfortable with.

Some interesting examples include invisibility effects. By default, if you’re invisible, that’s that, but some invisibility mechanics come with a limitation: “breaks if you make an attack”. This is a familiar limit for long-time D&D players, and it used to be the default for all forms of invisibility (which sometimes trips up people when you are invisible, but can attack and remain unseen).

This is an example of a “legacy” rule. It may balance out a power, but it’s mostly there to evoke a sense of nostalgia in the old school gamer. To make the game feel more like “D&D”. But what, exactly, is an attack?

This is hotly debated, and a lot of people simply default to “using an Attack Power”. Well that seems logical. Except…

Some people consider the Swordmage’s ‘Aegis of Assault’ to be an Attack Power. It doesn’t require an attack roll, but the power can grant a melee basic attack to the Swordmage. And, as it happens, the Warlord Power, Direct the Strike, which grants a melee basic attack to an ally is, you guessed it, an Attack Power.

Which begs the question: is an Assault Swordmage breaking an invisibility effect by simply Marking their enemy?

Now, I don’t think “making an attack” necessarily means “using an Attack Power”. I know of Utility Powers that can both inflict damage as well as grant bonus attacks. But you can see how this could trip people up.

But now I’m going to talk about the 500 lb. Gorilla in the room.

Limiting players to one attack each turn granted by a free action was intended to prevent the abuse of certain powers that let players attack as a free action. It, among other things, prevents a Warlord from using Direct the Strike, using an Action Point, and using Direct the Strike again to grant the same ally a bonus attack.

A character could benefit from two Warlords using Direct the Strike on different turns, however. As an interesting aside, this also means you can’t use Hypnotism on a creature to make him attack his buddy, and use an Action Point to make him do it again!

Because, you see, a “melee basic attack” is considered to be an Attack Power under the current rules (Rules Compendium, page 66). A lot of players don’t like this rule, because they feel it breaks more things than it fixes. And so they scoured the lists of Powers, looking for a good example.

Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms gave them their answer. The Scout build for the Ranger Class has an At-Will ability called Dual Weapon Attack. It’s a Free Action that grants them a bonus attack with their off-hand weapon if they hit with their main weapon. And sure enough, it has reminder text:

Special: You can use this power only once per round.

But wait, there’s more! The Scout also has an Encounter Attack Power, called ‘Power Strike’. It’s used as a Free Action, and increases the damage of a melee basic attack that hits. Oops.

Yes, that’s right, as written, you can’t use Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack. But it gets weirder!

Imagine a Half-Orc Scout. His Racial ability, Furious Assault, is practically the exact same ability as Power Strike! But what kind of Power is it?

As of this writing, I’m not sure, but I’m trying to find out. As I’m trying to teach a friend how to play 4e, and he’s playing a Scout, this question has a certain relevance. I had him make an Essentials character because I felt it would bring less rules to the fore at once, thus making it easier to teach the game, and make it more fun.

And, for the most part, I feel that was a good decision. I just don’t feel that attempting to explain to him why he can’t use Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack in the same turn would be helpful in the slightest, and, to be honest, I don’t see how it unbalances things either.

On the other hand, should he reach third-level, he’ll get another use of Power Strike, and that’s when the necessity of the “free action attack rule” becomes more apparent- to prevent someone from using two Power Strikes with the same turn- or even the same attack!

Hopefully, I’ll have more answers by the next installment, in which I tackle two combat options that can confuse even veteran gamers- readying and delaying actions!

Related articles

• Fortune Cards, my two cents… from Stargazer’s World (stargazersworld.com)
• 4e D&D Goes Full Retard (mxyzplk.wordpress.com)
• Too Many Rules/Mechanics? (gmoracle.com)
• Old School vs New from Observations of the Fox (vulpinoid.blogspot.com)
• Divorcing Mechanics From Narrative from Reality Refracted (realityrefracted.com)