4e / GSL Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by pemerton

This is where page 42 of the DMG comes into play. As the example of the Acrobatics check and the chandelier shows, the GM is meant to set DCs for non-power-based stunts that reflect not just the difficulty of the action in the gameworld, but the suitability of the action to the narrative (ie do we as a gaming table want to see more or less of this sort of stuff going on?).

I think this part of GMing 4e is actually quite challenging, because it can affect the mechanical balance of the game if the GM is not careful to keep stunting at a lower level of effectiveness than powers, but it can affect the narrative satisfactoriness of the game if the GM is not highly permissive in allowing all sorts of stunting.

Pukuni, I hope I'm right in remembering that you've followed a lot of LostSoul's threads on how to use page 42 to handle this sort of thing. I'm going to start GMing 4e fairly soon, and will certainly be relying on a lot of LostSoul's ideas for guidance and inspiration.

One thing I'd like to add here, and it is something I initially missed, is that the tumble utility is an exception, a freebie. This ability was moved to the acrobatics skill - stunt - and the ability was opened up a little in scope for juicy swashbuckling action.

There are a lot of subtle changes that I missed on my first read through and knowing the ins-and-outs of 3e hindered me.

[lutecius]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

If you're referring to me, please check my sig.

I have never played 4E. Please bear that in mind before assuming that I'm some 4E fanboy.

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

Originally Posted by me

I don't see how not being able to do something more than once per encounter, no matter what, is empowering, "narratively" or otherwise.
Gamist? Artificial? sure. But the abillity to "decide when the opportunity arises" once per encounter is certainly not more empowering than at will attacks in previous edititions. In the end, the dice still decide whether a power works.

And even if you consider the "miss effects" as narrative control, I'm of the mind that dms should control the world and players their characters. It makes things clearer and immersion easier.

Originally Posted by Amy Kou'ai

I wouldn't call it "empowerment", I'd call it "control." Basically the ordinary order of operations is inverted -- rather than narrative pre-conditions allowing a maneuver to occur, the maneuver itself creates its own narrative pre-conditions. In terms of who has a hand in how the narrative actively plays out, 4E powers tilt control toward the players -- not because of any particular notion that players can change narrative on a whim, but because their interfaces to the world have narrative-changing abilities built into them.

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

Originally Posted by FireLance

The one that I find works best for me is:

"Whew, that was tiring, and I think overexerted/strained [specific muscle X]. I'm going to have to rest five minutes/six hours before I can do that again."

I think we've discussed this before but I find this "specific muscle strain" explanation terribly contrived.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by pukunui

The main justification that I've seen is that the limited-use martial powers involve an element of chance and/or require circumstances to be just right in order to set up and pull off ... and thus, while your character may well be repeatedly attempting to pull off these actions "in the background" during any given encounter, it is only when you, as the player, consciously choose to use a given power that your character actually succeeds.

This explanation might work for you. Sadly it doesn't work for me.

I does not really work for me either.

In fact, the setup stuff acually sounds cooler to me. I don't know how you would balance it but I think I would like it if fighters had many situational "at-will" abilities that a clever player could setup.

The one that I find works best for me is:

"Whew, that was tiring, and I think overexerted/strained [specific muscle X]. I'm going to have to rest five minutes/six hours before I can do that again."

Sadly, this does not really work for me.


Thanks.

M.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by pemerton

There is a huge difference between being railroaded by the GM, and playing in accordance with the rules of the game.

Yeah, there sure is. You can replace a bad DM for free, but replacing bad game design costs everyone money.

So when the rules of the game straightjacket you into something there is a bigger problem than when the DM does it.

If the powers system was more open to choice and the DM limited you to only one at-will, replace the DM.

If the system is hellbent on balance and adding an extra at-will or converting one encounter power to an at-will breaks the cohesion of the mechanics, then there is even more work that needs to be done.

Again this coincides with problems I have had with feats all along as well as the powers in the "requirements" for some of the crap. You must use a hammer for this power/feat.

Well if I want the sword swinger then that power really isn't something I can choose so the rules limit me arbitrarily without offering something at all.

That is where the powers system railroading the choices is worse than a DM.

Maybe it is just the flavor tied to closely to the mechanics of the powers for many of them. Maybe Crushing blow needs a counterpart at that level for other types of weapons, etc; that does not limit options.

But it should exist in the main set, and not require a splat book to correct the problem with the powers.

What about that dart chucker? Where is his power?

Repeated stabs with a dart for total 10[w] damage +STR modifier and shifts the target 1 square. Shift to illustrate moving away from being poked to death!

Call it standard action encounter power weapon martial. Then magic darts can add there little extra damage on top of the 10-20 the darts do.

Too overpowered for a fighter right?

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

[Bagpuss]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

You aren't railroaded into using a hammer or axe for Crushing Blow, you can use it with any weapon.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

You aren't railroaded into using a hammer or axe for Crushing Blow, you can use it with any weapon.

Well, let'S pretend this was different:

"Why am I railroaded into using this spell slot for arcane spells? I rather prepare a Cure Light Wounds spell!"

"Why am I railroaded into using Weapon Focus for just one weapon?"

"Why am I railroaded in having to use a hammer to get a nail into wood? Why can't I use a screw driver or a saw? I like saws!"

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

First off, man, did you even read the rest of my post?

Secondly, I have indeed played 4e. You're not quite grasping what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are hardcoded measures against the fifteen minute work day as I saw it, which was based around players going and blowing the hell out of the first encounter they see with everything they have, and then sleeping to get it all back. 4e has hard-coded prevention systems around this - you have a much more structured power build up with dailies, encounters, and wills; a 3.5 wizard could have a similar structured system using long term, medium term, and short term spells (A goodly metamagic'd buff can last a couple encounters, summoning/calling outsiders and binding them can give you several days worth of use, or fireball, which can be used once). However, a 3.5 wizard could also just memorize a whole bunch of fireballs become a tactical - or rather, not so tactical - nuke in the first battle. For some people, losing that is a good thing. For others, it's not.

Honestly, did you read through my post, or jump to a conclusion? I'm not saying anything bad about 4e. If anything, my post there was praising it.

I did read through your post. But I see that I did indeed misunderstand a part of it, and for that, I apologize. I hope you understand why I would think you didn't play 4e.

Regarding the 15 minutes work day. I am one of those that think that there should be some limit as to how long characters can go on, so for me, the surge-limit is much better than the spell-limit we had in prior edition. Mostly because it is really hard to blow all your surges in one or two combats. Also, for what it is worth, I have seen players go volountarily into big encounters with no surges left, but yeah, they had to play extremely defensively. I know this is probably an exception, but boy it was fun and nerve-wracking for them.

Cheers

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Maniac

I does not really work for me either.

In fact, the setup stuff acually sounds cooler to me. I don't know how you would balance it but I think I would like it if fighters had many situational "at-will" abilities that a clever player could setup.



Sadly, this does not really work for me.


Thanks.

M.

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Storminator

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

That's crazy enough it just might work.
Thanks for the great tip.

M.

[Amy Kou'ai]

Originally Posted by lutecius

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

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

Originally Posted by lutecius

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

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.

[pukunui]

Originally Posted by pemerton

The game rules limit what the player can do while playing the game. But they also let the player decide (in accordance with those rules) what the gameworld is like (eg that all one's PC's opponents simultaneously come towards him/her). The rules increase the player's control over the state of the gameworld.

OK. I get what you're saying here and I don't have an issue with that aspect of narrative control. Giving PCs the power to push, pull, slide, set on fire, etc their opponents is not what I'm complaining about. What I'm complaining about is the artificiality of saying that I can only do those things once an encounter or once a day. That and the fact that I have to keep coming up with justifications as to why I can only do those things so infrequently.

"OK, I use x fighter encounter power. I can't use that one again because now the enemies have all seen what I've done and their guard is up so it won't work again ... but wait! Here comes a new enemy! He didn't see me use that power! But for some reason I can't try to use it again on him either! Damn! I must be too tired to be able to try it again or else my luck just isn't with me and this enemy is just too smart - never mind that it's an owlbear - for me to be able to pull it off again. However ... if I run away and hide and do nothing for 5 minutes then not only will I feel strong enough to try my cool cinematic encounter power again but it might even work on those same enemies that I used it on before because they'll have forgotten what I did only 5 minutes ago! Woohoo!"
(Yes, this assumes a lot but hopefully you get my point ...)

Whereas in a system like RQ, AD&D or 3E a martial PC can attempt an action as often as desired, but the player of the PC has no capacity to determine that the circumstances in the gameworld are such that the action succeeds.

I disagree. There should always be a DC, whether it's one that's been predetermined by the rules or one determined by the DM on the fly, and the player (if I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone use "PC" when they mean "player", I'd be filthy stinking rich) should be able to know if they've succeeded or failed once they've rolled the dice.

Pukuni, I hope I'm right in remembering that you've followed a lot of LostSoul's threads on how to use page 42 to handle this sort of thing. I'm going to start GMing 4e fairly soon, and will certainly be relying on a lot of LostSoul's ideas for guidance and inspiration.

Yes, I have been ... but I've also given up on DMing 4e. If/when I DM again, it'll be with a different game system - most likely a modified version of the SWSE system.

Originally Posted by lutecius

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

I think we've discussed this before but I find this "specific muscle strain" explanation terribly contrived.

This.

Originally Posted by Storminator

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

I think that's what I'm going to have to do too but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Originally Posted by justanobody

Yeah, there sure is. You can replace a bad DM for free, but replacing bad game design costs everyone money.

So when the rules of the game straightjacket you into something there is a bigger problem than when the DM does it.

If the powers system was more open to choice and the DM limited you to only one at-will, replace the DM.

If the system is hellbent on balance and adding an extra at-will or converting one encounter power to an at-will breaks the cohesion of the mechanics, then there is even more work that needs to be done.

This too.

Again this coincides with problems I have had with feats all along as well as the powers in the "requirements" for some of the crap. You must use a hammer for this power/feat.

*snip*

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

I don't have a problem with tying specific feats/powers to specific weapons or damage types or whatever. However, it does limit your choice, in some cases quite severely depending on the class build you've chosen.

[Fallen Seraph]

While overall don't have anything to really complain about when it comes to the Power System, a couple things I would like to see are:

-A nice way to mathematically/mechanically improve a Power if you decide to forefeit some portion of it, ie: A hit then heal Power, some mechanical improvement if you decide to only heal.

-Some mechanics for introducing Powers more specifically to Skill Challenges, ie: A power that allows you to slide how would using that influence a chasing Skill Challenge.

While these can be house-ruled, be interesting to see what WoTC could do with it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by pukunui

OK. I get what you're saying here and I don't have an issue with that aspect of narrative control. Giving PCs the power to push, pull, slide, set on fire, etc their opponents is not what I'm complaining about. What I'm complaining about is the artificiality of saying that I can only do those things once an encounter or once a day. That and the fact that I have to keep coming up with justifications as to why I can only do those things so infrequently.

Seen Storminators post?

Martial abilities have one advantage - they aren't as flashy as spells. You can easily count how often the mage casts Fireball. But do you really know how often the Fighter deals damage? How much? Whether he trips his foes or whether the foe can catch himself quick enough to avoid any harm? (and when was it because the fighter was missing and when was it because the fighter didn't actually use the power in question?)

Storminators trick is to "pretend" his character is always attempting to pull of his maneuver. But it doesn't work out every time (because he misses or he doesn't have the power available anymore), and sometimes it works (becuse he hits with the power or the action his fighter took can hardly be distinguished from the action created by the encounter power). Brute Strike or a regular basic melee attack - who could really see the difference. Any attack that kills someone might look like a Brute Strike. Or like a Knockdown Maneuver.

I might just remind you of one thing: Even before the invention of combat maneuvers, tactical feats, Improved Trip Feats, before the invention of exploits, Covering Attacks and Tortorous Strikes, even then people had the idea that a simple, plain melee attack could stand for a large variety of combat maneuvers. It wasn' just sword slash after sword slash. it were uppercuts, parries, dodges, quick strikes... Yet the mechanic was always the same.

But maybe all fancy talking and explaining still doesn't make that a solution that works for you. It might feel "fake" - what's the point of the game rules if they don't map 1:1 (instead mapping n:m) to the game world all the time? That's okay. Don't sweat it. You don't have to like or play the game, even if we'd prefer otherwise.

Or you can just throw all notions of "martial power is not magic" out of the window. Maybe that works for you? To engage a fantasy monster like a dragon, you can't rely on mundane skills. Every martial exploit is just a type of magic channeled into combat. That's why you can't make a second Come and Get Some per round, you used up your magic.

If not, well, see above. Don't expect anyone here having a silver bullet removing all your doubts and problems with a system. Nobody managed to free me of my 15 minute adventuring days experiences in 3E, despite all the people that never encountered it. Nobody could make high level play simpler for me with some fancy words. It were just problems that kept cropping up - some of them, some don't. There are always way to explain why they happen or why they don't happen, but there isn't a way to make them go away until we create a different system.

[pukunui]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Seen Storminators post?

Yes. I even quoted it in my last post.

Martial abilities have one advantage - they aren't as flashy as spells. You can easily count how often the mage casts Fireball. But do you really know how often the Fighter deals damage? How much? Whether he trips his foes or whether the foe can catch himself quick enough to avoid any harm? (and when was it because the fighter was missing and when was it because the fighter didn't actually use the power in question?)

Storminators trick is to "pretend" his character is always attempting to pull of his maneuver. But it doesn't work out every time (because he misses or he doesn't have the power available anymore), and sometimes it works (becuse he hits with the power or the action his fighter took can hardly be distinguished from the action created by the encounter power). Brute Strike or a regular basic melee attack - who could really see the difference. Any attack that kills someone might look like a Brute Strike. Or like a Knockdown Maneuver.

I've already brought this up. Having to pretend that my character is constantly trying to pull off various maneuvers "in the background" and the only time he actually pulls it off is when I, the player, consciously choose to use a power just doesn't do it for me.

I might just remind you of one thing: Even before the invention of combat maneuvers, tactical feats, Improved Trip Feats, before the invention of exploits, Covering Attacks and Tortorous Strikes, even then people had the idea that a simple, plain melee attack could stand for a large variety of combat maneuvers. It wasn' just sword slash after sword slash. it were uppercuts, parries, dodges, quick strikes... Yet the mechanic was always the same.

Yes, that's fine. And you could use that one mechanic to do the same thing over and over again if that's what you wanted to do ... but you can't do that with encounter powers. And the issue that I have is some of the specific things you can do only as encounter powers. Some of those things should be things you can do over and over again but for some reason the designers have decided that you can't.

Or you can just throw all notions of "martial power is not magic" out of the window. Maybe that works for you? To engage a fantasy monster like a dragon, you can't rely on mundane skills. Every martial exploit is just a type of magic channeled into combat. That's why you can't make a second Come and Get Some per round, you used up your magic.

That would be fine if all of the martial powers seemed supernatural in some way, but there are plenty of them that seem very mundane and should not be given arbitrary usage limits.

Sorry I'm being so vague. I know concrete examples would be good but I haven't got my books with me as I'm at work.

If not, well, see above. Don't expect anyone here having a silver bullet removing all your doubts and problems with a system.

I'm not looking for someone to solve my problems. I'm simply sharing my thoughts.

There are always way to explain why they happen or why they don't happen, but there isn't a way to make them go away until we create a different system.

I think what I'm getting at is that I shouldn't have to explain things away. I shouldn't have to say, "Well, my character has been attempting this all through the fight but here's the one time where she actually pulls it off". I shouldn't have to justify why things are the way they are. However, with 4e, it seems like I either have to do that in order to keep my suspension of disbelief and desired immersion level or else I just have to stop thinking of it as an RPG and just play it as a glorified minis/board game or something.

[bert1000]

[quote=EnglishScribe;4540792]The fact this this is erreta and not in the core rulebooks to begin with, to me, shows that there are fundamental problems with the design-development-editing cycle at Wotc.
quote]

Haven't read the whole thread, but errata to state that you can use a power on an object instead of a creature when deemed appropriate is not an editing problem in my view. It's a problem with player/DM mentality from 3e.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by pukunui

Yes. I even quoted it in my last post.

Yeah, after I wrote my post, I noticed. Maybe I should clean my glasses again, but I am not sure its that time of the year already...

I've already brought this up. Having to pretend that my character is constantly trying to pull off various maneuvers "in the background" and the only time he actually pulls it off is when I, the player, consciously choose to use a power just doesn't do it for me.

Yes, that's fine. And you could use that one mechanic to do the same thing over and over again if that's what you wanted to do ... but you can't do that with encounter powers.

Yes. The deal is: Once your out of the encounter powers you want to use, go back to the OD&D model - pretend. The encounter and daily power is not there to remove the pretend-part of combat, it's there to enable tactical variety. (Well, that might not be an exact description of what it's all supposed to be or manages to be, but that's what I am getting at in this context ).
Maybe using stunts help to remove the pure "pretending" and "tactical power use", maybe it can't.

That would be fine if all of the martial powers seemed supernatural in some way, but there are plenty of them that seem very mundane and should not be given arbitrary usage limits.

Well, that's because the mundane stuff is the basic attack. You can narrate it as cool as you like, it will never be as effective as magical attacks. But well, I already said you that this doesn't work for everyone, either.

Sorry I'm being so vague. I know concrete examples would be good but I haven't got my books with me as I'm at work.

Well, a few pretty "mundane" looking things might be that 1st level trip power (I forgot its name) or that Whirlwind-Attack like power (I forgot its name, too ). Both is stuff you could pull off in 4E at-will if you had the feats.

I'm not looking for someone to solve my problems. I'm simply sharing my thoughts.

Well, in that case I am offering this as "advice" for everyone looking for ways out. There aren't.

I think what I'm getting at is that I shouldn't have to explain things away. I shouldn't have to say, "Well, my character has been attempting this all through the fight but here's the one time where she actually pulls it off". I shouldn't have to justify why things are the way they are. However, with 4e, it seems like I either have to do that in order to keep my suspension of disbelief and desired immersion level or else I just have to stop thinking of it as an RPG and just play it as a glorified minis/board game or something.

Yeah, I get that. Or maybe I don't, because I just don't think about this stuff when playing. I was quite able and willing to jump through all those morning spell-buffing hoops and wads of Cure Light Wounds for quite some time in 3E, despite it going against a lot my sense of what a "believable" world should feel like. At least in 4E I don't have to pretend that all rule elements have to map 1:1 to the game world. Of course I therefore have to effect that the rules can't really tell me - without some "narrating" and "after-the-fact-explaining" what really happens in the game world.

I can accept it because I have no alternatives. I accept it because I don't believe in perfect solutions. I know there will always be drawbacks. The questions is which get more annoying, and that's personal preference...

[pukunui]

I guess the thing is that I want a game that allows me to immerse myself in the narrative as it is happening, not one that requires me to wait until after the fact. With 4e, I just don't feel like I can get that kind of gameplay. With 4e, I can't forget that I'm playing a game. The gamist elements are always in my face, the powers system being the most obvious of the lot.

With SWSE, a lot of my class mechanics function in the background rather than the narrative/roleplaying. I don't have to pretend that my character is automatically doing things without me, as the player, consciously choosing to do them because I am more free to choose what my character can do and how often s/he can at least attempt to do it (depending on the ability and whether or not luck or the Force are involved).

Most of SWSE's talents and feats simply alter the game's default mechanics, either by allowing excepts or rerolls or adding slight bonuses or whatever. They don't get in the way of the gaming the way 4e's powers do. I can just do my thing, knowing that I can always reroll a Stealth check if I don't like what I've rolled the first time without having to stop and use a power to do it or wonder whether now is the right time or should I save it for later because I can only do it once an encounter ...


So there we go. In conclusion, I prefer a game that allows me more or less unlimited opportunities to shape the narrative as it is happening and in which the mechanics mostly take a back seat to the action. 4e doesn't appear to be able to do that very well.

Does that mean 4e is crap? No. It just means 4e is not for me ... which is disappointing and sad because I really wanted 4e to be for me (to the point that I even had "4e is 4 me" in my sig for quite some time). I guess my expectations were just too high.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by lutecius

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

Nope. Perhaps I should have said "Read my sig in conjunction with my user title." I see an awful lot of ridiculous arguments about why 4E is bad, and I have an intense dislike of ridiculous arguments.

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.

And really, my "defence" of 4E generally falls into the "that's a lot like previous editions of D&D" category.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Minigiant

They didn't kill the 15 minute workday with powers. They just changed the reason you rest. In 3E you rest when you ran out of OFFENSE. In 4E you rest when you run out of DEFENSE.

In 3E you can buy offense (weapons and ammo stacked with tons of magic, wands and scrolls) but you can't buy defense in 4E. So 4E adventure budgeting is different.

This is a really good point that kinda got lost in the scrum.

I know that in my current game, it's the first time the wands of Cure Light have seen consistent use and wow, no 15 minute adventuring days for us. Burn through cure lights like nobody's business, but, we keep on trucking for quite a while.

[bagger245]

Hi guys,
I am a old school roleplayer but would love to like 4th ed but the powers are
turning me off. Whenever I play 4th ed I can't help but imagine the powers as little
tiny icons on my desktop. I know by my explaination, that 4th ed is not a game
for me but since its part of the D&D family, I don't want to miss out.
My biggest challenge is probably envisioning the powers as a more narrative
approach instead of sesing it as a chess piece move. I do have some love for 4th ed
especially the tier system, but not the role-focused and especially not the powers.
I was happy to see there are utility powers, but they all seem very tactical to me
due to the mention of squares and the miniature jargons. Right now, I am trying a different
method to see powers, that is just using the power description instead of
the mechanical aspect of it.
I've been reading this thread and it seem that the DM has to tell players that they are allowed
to improvise the powers. That is like telling someone that you could move a knight differently
in chess, imo. Not writing things what you can do is better than writing it down. For those of you
who could make 4th ed work for you, especially those that came from older editions, not 3.5,
I applaud you.