4e / GSL Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by justanobody

The more times you hit someone in the head with a hammer, the more damage will be done each time, not less.

Okay, name an edition of D&D in which this happens. Seems to me that hammer does the same damage each time in most editions.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Okay, name an edition of D&D in which this happens. Seems to me that hammer does the same damage each time in most editions.

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

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.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by pemerton

All that you say makes sense. But I'm not sure that that is what Bagger245 had in mind - s/he seemed to be talking about keeping the flavour of powers constant but changing the mechanics, whereas all your examples depend upon varying the flavour of powers radically, so that a given power can stand in for many different ingame events.

Exactly - I was agreeing with you that 4E has you fit flavour to the mechanics, where in the past I've tended to do it the other way around.

It required a shift in my thinking, and if I hadn't played some Mutants and Masterminds this year, I don't know if I would have 'got it'. But now that I have, I'm liking it.

If I'd gone straight from 3.5 to 4E without playing an effects-based system in between, I might have found the idea of 'consistent mechanics, variable flavour' jarring.

-Hyp.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

You've read to much character optimization threads.

I might add - power attacking or sneak attacking flat-footed foes - you most likely won't get this chance again...

Of course, there is a small flaw in the initial post - it assumes people use their encounter or daily powers in the first round. But that's not always a good idea, many powers benefit more from a good setup, meaning you deal really awesome damage at a later time when you've moved the party and maneuvered the enemy in a good position. And then even an At-Will power might turn out to be the most damage dealing action (at least for Strikers and Controllers...) in that encounter...

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

Exactly - I was agreeing with you that 4E has you fit flavour to the mechanics, where in the past I've tended to do it the other way around.

It required a shift in my thinking, and if I hadn't played some Mutants and Masterminds this year, I don't know if I would have 'got it'. But now that I have, I'm liking it.

If I'd gone straight from 3.5 to 4E without playing an effects-based system in between, I might have found the idea of 'consistent mechanics, variable flavour' jarring.

That's interesting. It does seem this particular shift is what's giving some such consternation.

I've always played D&D with a heavy dose of flavoring the mechanics, just the way I roll, I guess. About any caster I've ever made, I've devoted time to figuring out the look and 'themes' of his spellcasting style and always done things like flavoring magic missiles as actual arrows (for a conjurer), colored energy bolts (including rainbow for flamboyant chaos wizard), rays, completely invisible force (stealthy wizard/rogue), etc.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

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.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

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.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

Let's say there we have a rogue with a +1 rapier, facing an orc.

The player alternatively says "I stab him with my rapier!" or "I kick him in the groin!"

In 3.5, I would have him make an attack roll with a +1 enhancement bonus, dealing 1d6+1 (+ Str) lethal damage for the rapier, or an attack roll with no enhancement bonus, dealing 1d3 (+ Str) non-lethal damage (and provoking an AoO) for the kick.

In 4E, I'll assume that the rapier is the Accessory for the power he's using (Sly Flourish, say), and I'll include the rapier's proficiency bonus and enhancement bonus in the attack roll, and he'll use d8 for [W]... for either the stab or the kick. The cinematic description is flavour; the mechanics of the power are the same either way....So the mechanics of "I kick him in the groin!" change, depending on whether or not he is holding a rapier. I would never have run 3E that way. But if I ran a 3E game today... I'd now consider doing it like that.

I actually narrate stuff like that in 3e fights and I did before I heard of 4e... now, usually, only in person v. person fights where they were just chopping down the first half of the other guy's hit points – a telling blow or a finishing blow would be with the business end of the weapon. Also if it mattered somehow, like a monster resistant to weapon types, I'd make sure there wasn't a clash there, etc. etc.

A wrinkle to all that which hasn't been discussed is that when you treat 4e powers as an effect that can be described on the fly... well, it's generally accepted that 4e powers allow for a great deal of character customization, but when you make the descriptions of the (esp. martial) powers nebulous like that, they don't define the character as well – they're more like playing cards you deploy to abstractly affect the battle.

I mean, if you describe what's written as a shield-bash effect as, depending on the circumstance, a kick to the belly, pulling the rug out from under the foe, intimidating him with a shout, chucking a wine bottle at him, and so on, that's all very vivid, but it does mean that the power kind of stops describing a fighter that's really good with a shield.

I don't know how big of a deal that is, really. But because I came into reading the 4e PHB with that attitude, the powers section of the book read more like part of the combat system than part of the character customization system. (except for some of the casters)

[Andor]

Ok, if I understand the current back and forth it boils down to the fact that in 4e you can produce mundanely effects previously achievable only by magic, and that to explain these effects without magic is awkward to 'requires retconning.'

EG: Bob the fighter is in melee with an Orc. He has taken a few minor hits but then the Orc uses his Big Power and crits with it. Bob take 39 points of damage dropping him from 'not even bloodied' to 'down and dying'. The GM describes this as a mighty axe blow that cleaves into Bobs chest and cuts to the breast bone sending bits of lung flying. A round goes by, Bob fails his stabilization roll dropping a step closer to death. The GM describes his breath coming up in bubbles of blood. The warlord uses inspiring word "On your feet Bob, it's only a fleshwound." Bob is suddenly at 1/4 HP and functional.

How is this explained? The simplest way for the GM is to say it was never as bad as it looked, the blood and bits of lung were really the juice box and baloney sandwich Bob had packed for lunch, etc. Without that Retcon it seems supernatural.

So alternatively must the GM leave all wounds and blows undescribed until after the fight is done and we know if they were final, healed magially, or healed by a pep talk? 'Schrodinger's wounds' don't sound that appealing either.

Is that the crux of the arguement?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by justanobody

In order to claim you can do something to me as a DM you better be ready to back it up with an explanation to me, not just that some video game super power rule says you can, because I don't play video game PnP RPGs.

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 the use of a complicated manoeuvre; for example, an enemy is momentarily distracted by another opponent, or falls for a feint, or holds his shield in a way that interferes with his attack, etc. This allows 4e to include events in the game that occur beneath the level of abstraction allowed by the previous edition's rules.

While we have always assumed that combat involved a lot of feints, dodges, and clever manoeuvres, the mechanical system has always boiled down to "*roll* I hit, for *roll* 10 damage." The cool minutiae of combat are ignored because they're too fiddly to devote any energy to. If we had tried to do so, a combat round would take half an hour to play through because of all the dodging and blocking and whatnot. Feats were able to add a bit of complexity, particularly Tactical Feats. However, they generally relied on triggering conditions that may or may not ever occur, which meant that what should have been a cool addition to a player's tactical repertoire ended up being so much wasted space.

4e addresses this problem by allowing players a certain number of tokens that they may play in order to grab narrative control every so often. The control they gain is extremely limited, and is generally restricted to the purpose of making combat look and feel awesome. By designing the game in this way, it allows powers to specifically emulate the kinds of cool, rich details that combat consists of, and pulls us away from the "I miss/I hit" days of yore. You can now literally sit down to watch 300 and make notes for new martial powers based on cool things the Spartans do, then implement them in under 10 minutes. All for the price of allowing the player to say "the orc is standing with his leg exposed under his shield, so I kneecap him," once or twice per session.


Now then, I really don't think you're interested in hearing any of this, but I thought I'd throw it out there because this is, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest innovation that 4e has brought to the table. Forget balancing classes, forget ditching the christmas tree effect, forget the end of the 15 minute adventuring day. Being able to do awesome things, because you are given narrative control within particular boundaries, is the thing that got me playing 4e.

Also, that thing you mention with Transmute Mud to Rock? That's an exploit. The DM is there to prevent abuses like that, not to encourage them. I really don't see what's fun about effortlessly killing yet another group of enemies because you figured out a loophole in the system that your DM is too wimpy to overrule.

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Oh god, imagine using the Improv Rule in what is essentially improv S&S fiction! Nice post.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by pukunui

"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 ...)

I seem to recall that Hypersmurf (or someone) used to copy-paste a favourite sentiment of his regarding thinking too hard about fantasy into threads about D&D physics. It applies here too.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by 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.

Speaking as someone who has played 3e since 2000, and continues to play it to this day, I am seriously amused by this comment. 3e is a good game, but it's a game, and it reminds you that it's a game with each forgotten +1 bonus, each reference to the back to remember what Nauseated does, and each hour of DM prep required to generate statblocks for high-level NPCs. What immersion there is happens between die rolls, when you narrate your character's actions or roleplay your way through an encounter...just like in 4e, or in any edition of the game.


P.S. 4 posts in a row. Still waiting for that merge function, fellas!

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

I seem to recall that Hypersmurf (or someone)

Not me - sounds like hong's mantra.

-Hyp.

[ProfessorCirno]

You people...


House ruling or saying "Just pretend the problem isn't there" doesn't get rid of the problem. First off, I'm glad some of you don't think it's a problem - no sarcasm, it means you're having no problems having fun with the game, and you're overall just having a good time. And that's a good thing; it's what games are supposed to do. 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. For me, there's a problem with mustard. But I've yet to have someone say "You don't have a REAL problem with mustard. You're just FAKING it. Stop thinking so hard about mustard and just enjoy it." Primarily because if they did, they would be a douche, and I would punch them for being-a-douche related reasons. For some reason, it's socially acceptable to have a problem with mustard, but it's not socially acceptable (at least around here) to have an issue with 4e Powers system mechanics.

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.

[Gort]

Originally Posted by Andor

Ok, if I understand the current back and forth it boils down to the fact that in 4e you can produce mundanely effects previously achievable only by magic, and that to explain these effects without magic is awkward to 'requires retconning.'

EG: Bob the fighter is in melee with an Orc. He has taken a few minor hits but then the Orc uses his Big Power and crits with it. Bob take 39 points of damage dropping him from 'not even bloodied' to 'down and dying'. The GM describes this as a mighty axe blow that cleaves into Bobs chest and cuts to the breast bone sending bits of lung flying. A round goes by, Bob fails his stabilization roll dropping a step closer to death. The GM describes his breath coming up in bubbles of blood. The warlord uses inspiring word "On your feet Bob, it's only a fleshwound." Bob is suddenly at 1/4 HP and functional.

How is this explained? The simplest way for the GM is to say it was never as bad as it looked, the blood and bits of lung were really the juice box and baloney sandwich Bob had packed for lunch, etc. Without that Retcon it seems supernatural.

So alternatively must the GM leave all wounds and blows undescribed until after the fight is done and we know if they were final, healed magially, or healed by a pep talk? 'Schrodinger's wounds' don't sound that appealing either.

Is that the crux of the arguement?

Your example is silly. The GM knows that Bob can be picked up at any time by the warlord, so why would he go into such an overly anatomical description for Bob being knocked down, when he could simply describe him being knocked to his knees, winded, lacking the will to carry on, as the darkness swirled in around him?

Stop putting words in our mouths please.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

Not me - sounds like hong's mantra.

-Hyp.

Hong, or someone like him, then. It's a good point anyway. As soon as you allow magical unicorns and physics-defying giant humanoids into a game, you can either start writing Nitpickers' Guides or you can just play the damn game.

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Gort

Your example is silly. The GM knows that Bob can be picked up at any time by the warlord, so why would he go into such an overly anatomical description for Bob being knocked down, when he could simply describe him being knocked to his knees, winded, lacking the will to carry on, as the darkness swirled in around him?

Stop putting words in our mouths please.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked if I understood the argument. I provided an example to make my question clear. Apparently I failed.

*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. Your reply seems to indicate that that you follow my alternate suggestion and as a GM you do not dare to provide dramatic renditions of the course of the fight for fear of being contradicted by later use of some mundane power.

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?

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

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.