4e / GSL Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by justanobody

The problem is D&D isn't fiction. It is not some predestined story where the author decides what happens. The DM doesn't just tell a story to a grou of people and call them players to just watch the action.

No, it's not the GM's story. That's why the rules give (limited) narrative control to the players.

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Secondly, if anything, the number of explanations and house ruled ways to show how powers aren't bad, really, just proves that there IS a problem. I'm glad the house ruling works for you. But here's the thing - house ruling isn't core. Your house rules aren't everyone's house rules; if anything, your house rules aren't ANYONE'S house rules. And most of you have completely different explanations at that. But here's the thing - those explanations and house rules wouldn't exist if there wasn't something for you to fix in the first place. You don't make all these explanations like "Oh, well, clearly I just didn't have the opening for the move that time" unless you felt the need to.

This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that playing a game as it is intended to be played is houseruling it!

[ardoughter]

Originally Posted by Andor

*sigh* That having been said, the DM's description would have been good GMing in any other edition of D&D. And many other RPGs for that matter.

Not to me it would. Back in the day, I had a problem with hit point systems, in that any wound like you described would be at the very least crippling if not fatal given the standards of medical knowledge and higene in a medieval type society. I learned to get over it, to an extent because 'realism' is an illusion at best. But that kind of narration would drop me out of the story because for me hit points simply do not work as a physical repersentation of anything. There are too many ways to pick them apart.

So I prefer narrating hit points as something intangible, plot protection for the PCs. Nobody in D&D suffers crippling wounds. There are no one legged, one armed, one eyed fighters as pcs.

Now if you want a wound system it would be easy to add one but does anyone really want to play Blind Phew?

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by Andor

IThat having been said, the DM's description would have been good GMing in any other edition of D&D.

No it wouldn't, because in 3E, without any magic, that PC could have been stabilised by a heal check and then recovered consciousness by natural healing in a day or two - which is utterly unrealistic.

4e, like 3E and earlier editions of D&D, requires care in narrating truly debilitating injuries, because it has such a relaxed approach to recovery.

[ardoughter]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

You people...

But other people are having a problem with this, and saying "I don't see the problem" doesn't change their experience. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else. Because we love food metaphors, I dislike mustard. I dislike just about everything about mustard.

I don't have a problem with fouth edition D&D, it abstracts things that I have always abstracted. Now you evidently do, and explainations by people that like 4e D&D do not appear to be satisfactry to you. So what exactly are you looking for?
If you don't like that much then play something you do like and are people twisting your arm and making you play 4th edition? Ignore people that are telling you that your opinion is wrong, its right for you, this is a game, people should be having fun, so have fun.
I don't like celery so I do not eat it ever. I presume you are the same with mustard.

[RyvenCedrylle]

Originally Posted by ardoughter

Now if you want a wound system it would be easy to add one but does anyone really want to play Blind Phew?

*waves hand* Ok, maybe not blind - this isn't GURPS. However, there are plenty of ways to mechanically introduce the toll of a physical wound without resorting to 'you can't use your right arm.' The core rules already mention loss of healing surges. The inability to use an action point is another possibility - the character can't see important opportunities through the pain of her injuries. Ruling a character under 10 HP is slowed or weakened wouldn't be hard either.

I happen to be a huge fan of condition track systems, but I'll admit the main issue is that usually only the PCs are 'on stage' long enough for condition tracks to matter. HPs affect everyone equally. Still, the use of preset conditions that can be inflicted on characters through other means as part of a 'wound' system goes a long way toward evening the playing field in that way. I also like to know that when I hit something, I actually hit it, not just nicked it, grazed it or made it angry. Those fall into the 'miss' category for me. YMMV.

To drive this back toward the topic of the thread, predictable rider effects are one thing about 4E that I really appreciate. I love disarming, tripping, pushing around and otherwise screwing with enemies' heads in all RPGs, so that fact that this is flat-out encouraged in 4th edition is a bonus for me. I'll do it as a pure roleplaying tactic or as a power; it doesn't matter. Given the codified 'modern' gaming style versus the more spontaneous, GM-centric 'old-school' style, I think the fiddly bits of powers bring a lot back to the game. I'd still like to be able to try to trip every round, though. (BTW, I too am a martial artist and realize just how impossible that really is - that's why I game.)

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Andor

*sigh* That having been said, the DM's description would have been good GMing in any other edition of D&D. And many other RPGs for that matter.

No. It wouldn't. The description does not match what is happening in the game. "Your spaceship is crashing because the pixelated fairy unicorns refuse to supply the hyperdrive with 20th century gasoline" is a poor description for a serious sci-fi setting in which a spaceship is actually crashing. It's even worse for a rousing game of Boot Hill.

Describing a PC reduced to 0 hit points, in 4e, as mortally wounded with bits of lung flying everywhere, his entrails grappling him, and his liver making a desperate bid for freedom out the dungeon door is a poor match for a system with leaders, healing powers, inspiring powers, healing surges, potions, the heal skill... 0 hit points does not equal mortal wound, character near death. It equals unconscious, requires attention before it gets serious.

"Bob backtracks as the orc presses the attack, his axe a whirl of slashes. Suddenly, an axe blow slips by Bob's shield and the rest of you hear a sickening crunch and see a spray of blood as the axe hits Bob in the chest. He falls slowly to the floor, facedown."

Warlord: "Bob! Remember the words I spoke to you and to all when the trolls of the Fens descended upon us and all hope was lost -
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in Waterdeep now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day!"

-inspiring word applied-

Bob raises his head slowly, the orc having turned his back on the fallen warrior, and through sheer will, he rises to his feet, his hand still gripped tight around his longsword, blood flowing beneath his dented breastplate and soaking his tunic. The orc senses this and turns around. Bob spits a wad of blood on the ground between them and grins, his teeth outlined in red.

That's a more fitting representation of description that matches up with the game mechanics at play.

So am I correct in understanding that you feel good GMing in 4e require the GM confine himself only to vauge general statements about damage?

I enjoy DMing 4e because I understand the game system as it is and have not arbitrarily attached unwarranted and unsupported suppositions on top of the clear, concise rules and then contrived phony situations to illustrate non existant problems. But that's just me.

[lutecius]

Originally Posted by Amy Kou'ai

I think that's the key difference, though, and it's actually something fundamentally elemental to the system. A bit "Fortune in the Middle."

And yet, having a limited control, narrative or otherwise, over something that used to be "at will" is not a gain.

Originally Posted by Amy Kou'ai

I don't know, I get the impression that the design process for martial powers often starts with "Wouldn't this look cinematically really cool?" After all, it's a touted feature of the system.

Yeah, so were flexible multiclassing and the end of vancian casting
Anyway, I was referring to the per-encounter/day mechanic but now you mention it, I also think many martial powers mostly exist for gamist reasons. Defenders must draw attacks, leaders must "heal" or move allies around… and to hell with consistency.
The flimsiness of some power descriptions and the lack of correlation between some attacks and their effects don’t scream "cinematically cool" to me.

Originally Posted by pemerton

I think you're wrong about this. Given Mearls past association with the Forge, and his knowledge and discussion of Forgist-techniques like PC Bangs on his blog, and given that Heinsoo expressly referred in an interview to the influence on 4e design of indie RPGs, the fact that 4e mechanics are highly similar to many indie RPG mechanics is almost certainly deliberate and not coincidental or an unintended side effect.

I might be wrong, but I’m still not convinced. The "narrative" benefits of the per-encounter/day system are pretty trivial compared to storytelling mechanics or even action points.
I’ve also read quite a few designer interviews, including the one you linked to. The only similarity with indie games Heinsoo mentions here is the emphasis on gameplay, not narration. And the one inspiration I read Mearls repeatedly mention was euro(board)games, not Sorcerer. Which actually reinforces my opinion that in this case, the "fortune in the middle" justification is just that, a justification for primarily gamist mechanics, not a goal in itself.

Originally Posted by me

doesn't defending 4e so consistently without even having played it make you even more of a fanboy?

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Nope.

You could have fooled me

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

When I see a ridiculous argument about why 4E is just plain better than other editions, I call those as well. But that situation doesn't come up nearly as often.

Has it? ever?
And even though you never played 4e, you’re the best judge of what arguments are ridiculous because…?
Please don’t take this as an attack but you often refer to your sig. Your posts though, are generally in line with what any 4e fan would say. And it’s okay. Just don’t use the fact that you never played 4e as an excuse. It’s not, and none is needed. PRIDE!

Originally Posted by Andor

...Is that the crux of the arguement?

Good point but shush. Don’t bring the hp argument over here

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by lutecius

Has it? ever?

It certainly has. That's why I said "less often" rather than "never".

Originally Posted by lutecius

And even though you never played 4e, you’re the best judge of what arguments are ridiculous because…?

If an argument is ridiculous, it's ridiculous. I am quite familiar with 4E rules and when someone makes a claim that is wrong, I call it out. Someone recently claimed that in 4E, you can only select a level 6 power when you first reach level 6. Which is wrong, because 6 is only the minimum level. So that's plainly wrong, and it's ridiculous to use it as a point against 4E.

Originally Posted by lutecius

Please don’t take this as an attack but you often refer to your sig.

I have to. I was recently referred to as a fanboy for defending 4E like this: "4E's system is actually very similar to previous editions." My point being, all editions of D&D are enjoyable, and claiming 4E is not enjoyable because of a feature that is similar to previous editions is silly.

Originally Posted by lutecius

Your posts though, are generally in line with what any 4e fan would say.

I submit that has more to do with your perception than what I post.

Claiming that "any" 4E fan would say the same thing is ridiculous. 4E fans are as varied as 3E fans or fans of any other edition. Lumping them into some homogeneous group is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by lutecius

And it’s okay. Just don’t use the fact that you never played 4e as an excuse. It’s not, and none is needed. PRIDE!

And this helps how, exactly? Other than to demonstrate my point about your perception?

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

3E. The first time he hits someone over the head, he uses his Power Critical feat (Masters of the Wild) to declare the hit an automatic critical threat. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use his Power Critical feat, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3E/3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the paladin uses Smite Evil to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Smite Evil, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the samurai uses Kiai Smite to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Kiai Smite, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the ravager uses Pain Touch to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Pain Touch, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

... is that the sort of thing?

-Hyp.

Since I have none of those "abilities" yet can continually do the same or more damage, not less after the initial hit.......too many splat books used, which is why you can do so many strange things with that edition.

The point still being that you shouldn't need all that crap from the powers system or something else to do something with common sense.

Yes common sense should play a part of games, otherwise why have rules at all.

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

Well, in 4e, I can make the hammer do more damage each time, if I choose my powers carefully and the fight lasts fewer rounds than I have powers.

Too many ifs for my taste.

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Why would I do that? You asserted that the hammer should do more damage each time it hits the foe, and that 4E is faulty because this does not happen. As usual, my "fanboi defence" of 4E is: yeah, but that's just like the older editions.

And why the assumption that the bigger-damage power gets used first? In 4E you can just as easily increase the damage with each subsequent hit, by using a power that causes more damage.

At any point where there is a chance to do more damage once, and then less damage for the same thing there is a problem, when the chance of succeeding has gone up, not down and all other variables remain the same.

I hit you in the head with a hammer 3 times and it does the same damage each time. The fourth time I hit you it does more damage, then the 5th time it somehow does less that the fourth.

There is a problem with that progression, unless the fifth time there is nothing left to damage and all possible damage that could be done, has been done.

So whether me hitting you, or you hitting me...pick one as PC and the other as monster it doesn't matter....the same thing will hold true throughout and if it doesn't then something has broken within the system and the rules....the game physics have broken.

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

How about this:

The design of 4th edition is such that it divides up narrative control between the players and the DM in a way similar to some recent independent RPGs. Specifically, it allows the player to declare that circumstances are right for

This is something I strongly am against. Players only get to decide what they want to do, and with that have more narrative control over anything the DM has, as the DM only sets up chances. The players don't get to choose they are hungry so they must eat to use power Y that grants 10 HP when eating.

What if they are full and cannot eat? No amount of "narrative control" can solve this issue.

The players decide when they can do something by trying to do it and succeeding. This is a major flaw I see in the design of the powers system, and one I do not care for.

Players can try to do anything, but the DM and judge of the world should be the one deciding if conditions are right.

Why not just remove the DM completely if all they are is a dice checker to verify rolls vs a table of outcomes or probable chances of success.

Players can't have everything. This isn't Chutes and Ladders with small children to cry because they fell down a ladder.

I also don't need some power to tell me what I want to try to do. I don't need it to flavor my game for me, because I am intelligent enough to state tot he DM I was to jump over the table and impale my opponent with my javelin.

I don't need a named power to try, and see no reason a player of mine should need that limitation either. Because without that named power, then they are limited in what they can do, and how many times they can, otherwise until the javelin is lost/broken, and the run out of table, my players can jump over as many times as they want stabbing whoever they want.

I give them that extra narrative control where the powers hold the players back, and deny it from them with its arbitrary limits.

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

Except that these aren't house rules. The approach we're describing toward the narration of in-game events is the intended approach. It's not a workaround for a problem, it's the actual way they expected us to do it. You have a power that describes a mechanical effect, and it has some fluff text attached to it. They specifically point out that the fluff text is completely optional, and actually should be modified to fit the particulars of the situation, as you see fit. If a particular description doesn't work, for whatever reason, be it verisimilitude, logic, or personal taste, the job of the player is to narrate a better description.

I don't recall quoting this, but maybe it has to go with the section above, so use that for a response to this quote, unless I figure out what and edit later what I was going to say here.

Originally Posted by pemerton

No, it's not the GM's story. That's why the rules give (limited) narrative control to the players.

I don't like giving silly limits to players for no reason. Only one person never got firebuilding NWP. They just couldn't give me a reason why their character could build a fire. It actually turned into a great game device since it was built into their character that they couldn't figure out how to build a fire in ANY circumstances.

Once again like powers, some strange and silly limit on the number of things a player has a chance to do, that doesn't belong.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Since I have none of those "abilities" yet can continually do the same or more damage, not less after the initial hit.......

Hmm? A 4E character who doesn't have a high-damage daily behaves the same way. His at-will powers deal about the same damage each time.

too many splat books used, which is why you can do so many strange things with that edition.

Smite Evil comes straight from the PHB.

At any point where there is a chance to do more damage once, and then less damage for the same thing there is a problem, when the chance of succeeding has gone up, not down and all other variables remain the same.

I hit you in the head with a hammer 3 times and it does the same damage each time. The fourth time I hit you it does more damage, then the 5th time it somehow does less that the fourth.

You mean like if the 3E fighter, who deals 1d8+4 with his hammer, rolls three 4s for 8 damage each, then rolls a critical for 25 damage, then rolls another 4 for 8 damage again?

I don't like giving silly limits to players for no reason. Only one person never got firebuilding NWP. They just couldn't give me a reason why their character could build a fire. It actually turned into a great game device since it was built into their character that they couldn't figure out how to build a fire in ANY circumstances.

Once again like powers, some strange and silly limit on the number of things a player has a chance to do, that doesn't belong.

I'm confused - are you saying this was a 'great game device', or a 'strange and silly limit'?

-Hyp.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by justanobody

This is something I strongly am against. Players only get to decide what they want to do, and with that have more narrative control over anything the DM has, as the DM only sets up chances.

I notice that you cut out my comments about granularity, which were largely the point of that post, so I'll repeat myself.

If the DM does not say, "the enemy glances at the paladin, giving you an opening," you don't get a chance to use an interesting ability that relies on such an opening. The DM never has any reason to do that, considering that it would be essentially a free giveaway. He never sets up chances, because there are no rules for setting up chances at that level of granularity. The monster is in this square or that. It is attacking or not. It has conditions X, Y, and Z applied by various spells and effects. But did it over-reach when it tried to hit you with its club, granting you an opportunity to knock it down? There are no rules for that.

4e specifically lets you say, yes, the monster over-reached. By blowing this particular encounter power, I get to say it did, and I get to hit it like so. 4e specifies details that 3e abstracts, and those details are things that make combat sound more fun when you're describing what it is that's going on.

Sure, you could ad-lib this stuff, but then you would have to deliberately avoid descriptions that give you mechanical advantages. In 3e, you could turn "I hit for 3 damage," into "I smash his face with my mace," but you couldn't then ask the DM whether smashing his face causes him to have any kind of penalties, as one might expect it would. Book of Iron Might included a whole stunt system to account for these things, because of the perceived need for them. In 4e, you could simply get a face-smashing power that smashes faces and applies some kind of negative status effect on top of it in accordance with what you might expect after smashing someone's face.

4e hands you a bunch of cool actions, and says "here, use these. It'll be awesome." You don't have to wait for your DM to remember to give you the chance to do something other than "I hit for 3 damage." You get to throw in an awesome thing whenever you like. And the DM is given his own awesome things in the Monster Manual. The entire game is geared toward fun descriptions of cinematic combat manoeuvres. I fail to see how that is a bad thing to encourage.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

You mean like if the 3E fighter, who deals 1d8+4 with his hammer, rolls three 4s for 8 damage each, then rolls a critical for 25 damage, then rolls another 4 for 8 damage again?



I'm confused - are you saying this was a 'great game device', or a 'strange and silly limit'?

-Hyp.

Thankfulyl I am done with 3rd as they moved on to 4th, and that is what I play a bit now as well as AD&D. I am free from 3rd and its strangeness.

I was saying that the DM deciding everyone should be able to build a fire got around the silly NWPs.

It isn't so easy with these powers to just hand-waive it seems. At least we haven't found it yet.

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

I notice that you cut out my comments about granularity, which were largely the point of that post, so I'll repeat myself.

If the DM does not say, "the enemy glances at the paladin, giving you an opening," you don't get a chance to use an interesting ability that relies on such an opening. The DM never has any reason to do that, considering that it would be essentially a free giveaway. He never sets up chances, because there are no rules for setting up chances at that level of granularity. The monster is in this square or that. It is attacking or not. It has conditions X, Y, and Z applied by various spells and effects. But did it over-reach when it tried to hit you with its club, granting you an opportunity to knock it down? There are no rules for that.

4e specifically lets you say, yes, the monster over-reached. By blowing this particular encounter power, I get to say it did, and I get to hit it like so. 4e specifies details that 3e abstracts, and those details are things that make combat sound more fun when you're describing what it is that's going on.

Sure, you could ad-lib this stuff, but then you would have to deliberately avoid descriptions that give you mechanical advantages. In 3e, you could turn "I hit for 3 damage," into "I smash his face with my mace," but you couldn't then ask the DM whether smashing his face causes him to have any kind of penalties, as one might expect it would. Book of Iron Might included a whole stunt system to account for these things, because of the perceived need for them. In 4e, you could simply get a face-smashing power that smashes faces and applies some kind of negative status effect on top of it in accordance with what you might expect after smashing someone's face.

4e hands you a bunch of cool actions, and says "here, use these. It'll be awesome." You don't have to wait for your DM to remember to give you the chance to do something other than "I hit for 3 damage." You get to throw in an awesome thing whenever you like. And the DM is given his own awesome things in the Monster Manual. The entire game is geared toward fun descriptions of cinematic combat manoeuvres. I fail to see how that is a bad thing to encourage.

Starting with the bold part. 4th shouldn't limit you to what you can do like that...D&D shouldn't limit you like that.

What I do in the case of your "glacnes the paladin" bit, is nothing.

The enemy swings and either hits or misses. If it is a critical fumble, then he probably falls on his ass.

When it comes time for the player to do something they can add any flare they want. Any opening they wish the "exploit" for lack of a better word considering 4th's keywords....They can try anything they want.

It doesn't always mean they are going to get massive amounts of damage for trying something new and different.

That is the only thing I see 4th offering, is a bunch of bonus damage for things you could previously do if you only said you were going to hit someone with a hammer, but in turn you lose being able to do some things. Like creating your own flare.

To me the extra damage is not worth the narrative restrictions, among which is having everything keyworded. So when you say something the first instinct is that it menas a power if that happens to be the name of that powers.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Thankfulyl I am done with 3rd as they moved on to 4th, and that is what I play a bit now as well as AD&D. I am free from 3rd and its strangeness.

Okay. So the 1E fighter with a longsword, dealing 1d8+1 damage, rolls 3, 2, 3, 9, 4 for his five attacks. The fourth one was so much bigger than the first three, but the fifth one was lower than the fourth one!

I was saying that the DM deciding everyone should be able to build a fire got around the silly NWPs.

You didn't say that at all. You said the PC could never build a fire, which was a 'great device'.

Starting with the bold part. 4th shouldn't limit you to what you can do like that...

It doesn't. Read DMG p42.

When it comes time for the player to do something they can add any flare they want. Any opening they wish the "exploit" for lack of a better word considering 4th's keywords....They can try anything they want.

That's exactly how we're playing 4E.

That is the only thing I see 4th offering, is a bunch of bonus damage for things you could previously do if you only said you were going to hit someone with a hammer, but in turn you lose being able to do some things. Like creating your own flare.

4E hasn't prevented any flair on the part of my players.

So when you say something the first instinct is that it menas a power if that happens to be the name of that powers.

Train your players so that their first instinct is something helpful.

-Hyp.

[Toras]

See, I would love to see a/the power design rules. A basic balancing mechanism for constructing powers and balancing them against the other. I'd suggest point based, with different totals for at/will, encounter, and daily.

Then you pay for effects, targets, areas,....etc and then balance them against drawbacks like typed damage, defense,...etc. Then we could just make what we wanted from powers and not worry about it.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

Train your players so that their first instinct is something helpful.

-Hyp.

I am A player of 4th.

We decided it wasn't like D&D and we are just playing and accepting it as-is without thinking it is D&D, but a new game. It just doesn't fit for us to call it D&D because of these wonky things.

Also your 1e example doesn't change the range of the damage capable like the Crushing Blow power does change the range of the damage because of its single use.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Also your 1e example doesn't change the range of the damage capable like the Crushing Blow power does change the range of the damage because of its single use.

The range isn't important at the time, though. 8 damage at a given point in time is 8 damage, whether it was the maximum on 1d6+2 or the minimum on 8d10.

If I roll low four times and high once on 1d8, is that any different to rolling average four times on 1d6 and average once on 2d6? Why is one acceptable, and one unacceptable?

In the game world, the characters don't know the range of possibilities that might have just occurred; rather, they know the single possibility that did just occur.

-Hyp.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

The range isn't important at the time, though. 8 damage at a given point in time is 8 damage, whether it was the maximum on 1d6+2 or the minimum on 8d10.

If I roll low four times and high once on 1d8, is that any different to rolling average four times on 1d6 and average once on 2d6? Why is one acceptable, and one unacceptable?

In the game world, the characters don't know the range of possibilities that might have just occurred; rather, they know the single possibility that did just occur.

-Hyp.

But I know and that is what makes me feel something is off. I never said my PC feels anyway specific about it.

This is like where the whole Magic Missile being able to move a lever comes into play, where something just doesn't feel right, and explaining away doesn't work to well either.

Just not something I like about it.

Since I know the ranges of probability change because of odd insertion of a new range, then something is off for me, the player.

Back to the original thought, why do you need the powers, and how many are there really when you take into account the status effects?

Why not just let items offer status changes, and the bonus damage, and remove the powers. That is what they do now anyway except for melee types that get bonus weapon damage.

Then the player can hit someone in the head as many times as they want to bonk their enemies and remove potential arguments about why you can do something only one time....

Maybe if fighters didn't have some implied magic wild-talent to do this extra damage it wouldn't be so bad. But having the magic feel, and then limits on something seem odd.

Like getting a $100 bill and being told you cannot spend more than $1 in any given place. Yeah right!

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Why not just let items offer status changes, and the bonus damage, and remove the powers.

To what end?

Maybe if fighters didn't have some implied magic wild-talent to do this extra damage it wouldn't be so bad. But having the magic feel, and then limits on something seem odd.

It doesn't feel like magic or a limitation to me.

Sometimes when a 1E fighter hits someone with a longsword, he deals 2 damage, and sometimes he deals 8 damage.

Sometimes when a 4E fighter hits someone with a longsword, he rolls 1d8, and sometimes he rolls 3d8.

Why does one feel magic and the other doesn't? In 1E, I could assume that the 8 damage attack was made with a better angle, or a more vulnerable opportunity, or that the 2 damage attack was mostly deflected by a lucky parry. In 4E, I can assume that the 3d8 attack is made with a better angle, or a more vulnerable opportunity... the cinematics don't require any sort of magic.

-Hyp.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

To what end?

A hammer can stun people. Say the hammer can do it only once per day. This restricts the weapon, but not the fighter.

The fighter can still hit someone on the head and maybe stun them, but the hammer offers a better chance at doing it. If the rules allowed for stunning someone such as deciding who to kill and who to knock unconscious.

So the fighter can do the same thing over all day and expect the same result without himself being the cause for discrepancy.

I know Crushing Blow doesn't offer stun, but trying to keep out of the damage are and keep the same example of something to do.

It doesn't feel like magic or a limitation to me.

Sometimes when a 1E fighter hits someone with a longsword, he deals 2 damage, and sometimes he deals 8 damage.

Sometimes when a 4E fighter hits someone with a longsword, he rolls 1d8, and sometimes he rolls 3d8.

Why does one feel magic and the other doesn't? In 1E, I could assume that the 8 damage attack was made with a better angle, or a more vulnerable opportunity, or that the 2 damage attack was mostly deflected by a lucky parry. In 4E, I can assume that the 3d8 attack is made with a better angle, or a more vulnerable opportunity... the cinematics don't require any sort of magic.

-Hyp.

OK, that works for you, but um...what about me? To me it feels magic. That will not be changed by anything anyone says.

So we really have to disagree on how the powers look. You can explain the magic I see to your satisfaction, but not to mine. That is fine, and good it can work that 3way, but doesn't negate that we each seem unable to agree on it. Oddly enough unlike some on the internet feel...we don't have to agree on it. You can like it that way, and I am fine with it, and hopefully you are fine with me disliking it the way it is.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

So the fighter can do the same thing over all day and expect the same result without himself being the cause for discrepancy.

You're assuming the fighter is the cause of the discrepancy. Why not assume that the decision the fighter makes is whether or not to hit someone on the head, and the decision the player makes is whether or not the target might be stunned? That way, we can narrate anything as the cause of the discrepancy. The hammer glanced, or the hammer hit square. The target had his teeth clenched and wasn't disoriented, or the target's jaw snapped shut and he's rattled. The blow was caught short, or the blow struck at optimum distance.

The fighter isn't saying "I'll use my Stunning Hammer Blow", the fighter is saying "I'll hit him on the head". The player is saying "I'll spend my daily use of Stunning Hammer Blow to mean that this hit will stun the target".

All the fighter knows is that sometimes, if you're lucky, smacking someone on the head with a hammer will stun them.

From his point of view, it's no different to a feat that says "On a successful hit, roll 1d6; on a 6, the target is stunned". Sometimes, if the player rolls a 6, the target is stunned; sometimes, if the player doesn't roll a 6, the target isn't stunned. The fighter doesn't get to decide whether or not the target is stunned; sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

In 4E, sometimes the player decides to use a power that stuns - like rolling a 6. Sometimes, the player doesn't decide to use a power that stuns - like not rolling a 6. From the fighter's perspective, it's exactly the same - sometimes, people get stunned, and sometimes, they don't.

-Hyp.