Discussion of DMG page 42

[Imaro]

Okay, I have seen page 42 highlighted as the holy grail of improvising actions in 4e...now granted, it does give guidelines for damage and basically what amounts to skill checks for actions...but I fail to see how this helps one to improvise status conditions or movement effects. I am also missing why any player in their right mind would choose to do any of these improvised actions vs. using their powers...D&D is a tactical game and it doesn't make sense to try something like this...if it is less effective than one's powers....Let's take the example given in the book, but reduce level to 1 for a simpler example and replace the Ogre with a Bugbear Warrior.

Ok, the exmple is a rogue swinging on a chandelier and kicking the Bugbear into a brazier of hot coals...Let's look at how this plays out...

Using the books example, it's an easy DC, so 10 (we won't add the 5 since it's been errata'd...I think)... not too hard and with this check the rogue gets a hold on the chandelier and swings at the Ogre... Let's say for arguments sake a character will do this regardless...otherwise it's an extra check and just an extra chance at failing as opposed to just moving regularly (which could actually be one of the points against trying this as opposed to a power).

Now the kick...In the book it suggests Str attack vs. Fort, let's give the Rogue, the benefit of the doubt and say they have an ok Str...14 from the standard array...so +2 vs. the Bugbears Fort Def of 17...so roll a 15 or higher to push the Bugbear one square and into the brazier...for a "high" damage expression...2d6+3 (Avg damage 10)...Hmmm. Just doesn't seem worth it to me. Disregarding the extra check in the beginning just to swing, why would I choose to do this over a power...let's see...

Assuming a Rogue has a Dex of 18 (16 and a +2 from race)...and is using a short sword...+3 prof bonus, they're total to hit bonus is +7, If he uses Sly Flourish it is vs. AC... thus +7 vs. 18. Now assuming the Rogue has a decent Charisma, the power would do 1d6+4+2(for Cha mod)... (Avg damage 9.5 ) damage...

So you've traded a 20% bonus to hit...to do .5 more damage on average...doesn't seem like this would encourage anyone to do this...especially when you start factoring in the damage from possible combat advantage (sneak attack) or the use of a superior weapon (Rapier) and suddenly there is no advantage to trying the above stunt.

This wouldn't be so bad, but D&D is a tactical based game...and while it might be "cool" to do the swing from chandelier trick...it conflicts with the tactically sound option of using one's power. I know many people love the more forced, team oriented direction of 4e...but this is one of the problems I see with it, a player decides to try something like this and they're not just screwing themselves...they're screwing over the whole party. I don't like this aspect of 4e... and I know some will say just give more bonuses but if the stunts are too easy then why even have powers, suddenly they're meaningless. Also, how does one judge movement and status effects when PC's want to accomplish them? What are others doing as far as this situation, or are others even noticing this in their games? Thoughts or ideas??

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Because once you have him sitting in the brazier you spend and action point and still have you encounter power to hit him with. And if his initiative was before yours he is still sitting in the brasier at the start of his round and takes ongoing fire damage.
And even if you did not use the action point you still have your encounter and daily powers in reserve.
So by use of your imagination and a bit of wit you get to do encounter power type damage without spending that valuble encounter power. That is still available and can be spent on any round but the swinging from the chandeler does not set its self up as often and by creating an environment where it is possible a clever DM can allow the party punch above their weight in an encounter.

Say the party have fallen foul of the thieves guild now normally the party would have to flee the town becasue at their level they do not have the power to survive a guild hit team in a fair fight. However, it don't suit the story so they get wind of this and let the word that they will be at such and such a place where they go all A-Team and prepare the ground with traps and all sorts of whoosits. Demolish the hit team and buy themselves the time to complete the mission.

Much more interesting story.

 

[pawsplay]

If you want a less common action to be employed, it must be more useful than the standard action, but only slightly. And it must require effort on the part of the player to execute. I don't have the books, but from the overview you've written, this kind of stunting does not seem to be supported in 4e.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

This is why I have loosen up Powers a lot, I view Powers as not a single action but multiple actions built into a couple dice rolls. As such stuff like Skill Challenges, Acrobatic Tricks, pg. 42, etc. can be used in the middle of a Power.

So in your example, I could see the Rogue say... Use a Power; he shifts to launch himself at the chandelier, he crashes down into the Bugbear and shoves him into the brazier then finishes off the remaining aspect of the Power. Now this may seem overpowered but if you figure that if you fail the pg. 42 part, the Power is likely not to do anything or not completely. So it creates a bigger gamble and more cinematic experience and weaves more narrative with the Power.

 

[FourthBear]

If the action in question doesn't use the environment or an enemy weakness in some way, the action's effectively should be the equivalent of the basic at will actions that all characters have access to. If the action does use the immediate environment and is repeatable, the effect should be roughly equivalent to a per encounter power. I think this is reasonable as long as the action is either clever or dramatic. Actions that are not repeatable and exploit the environment in a particularly striking way are OK for roughly per day power effects.

Obviously, if the actions' resolution is strictly inferior to simple at will abilities, what's the point? However, an exploit may allow for effects not in the character's standard at will inventory. Given the explanation at the end of page 42, it would appear that normal damage expressions are intended to deliver the equivalent of per encounter damage.

 

[FourthBear]

Oh, one other thing. The official errata drops the DC values *significantly* (possibly too much). For example, the level 1-3rd DCs for Easy/Moderate/Hard are now 5/10/15. And both footnotes to increase DCs for skill checks and with the use of weapons have been eliminated. Whether this decreases DCs too much has been a significant topic of debate.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf

 

[Imaro]

Because once you have him sitting in the brazier you spend and action point and still have you encounter power to hit him with. And if his initiative was before yours he is still sitting in the brasier at the start of his round and takes ongoing fire damage.
And even if you did not use the action point you still have your encounter and daily powers in reserve.
So by use of your imagination and a bit of wit you get to do encounter power type damage without spending that valuble encounter power. That is still available and can be spent on any round but the swinging from the chandeler does not set its self up as often and by creating an environment where it is possible a clever DM can allow the party punch above their weight in an encounter.

Maybe I'm confused by what you are trying to convey here...but you could use an action point to get an extra attack regardless, I mean if you use Riposte Strike you could possibly get 3 attacks, instead of 2. And again CA and superior weapons offset most of the "extra damage", and I've shown the maneuver does (at high damage) only average damage on par with an at-will.

Say the party have fallen foul of the thieves guild now normally the party would have to flee the town becasue at their level they do not have the power to survive a guild hit team in a fair fight. However, it don't suit the story so they get wind of this and let the word that they will be at such and such a place where they go all A-Team and prepare the ground with traps and all sorts of whoosits. Demolish the hit team and buy themselves the time to complete the mission.

Much more interesting story.

Yes, I agree it's a much more interesting story (and this is really near the crux of what I'm getting at.)...until the PC's start trying to implement these "traps" and their chance to hit and damage is so low it hardly makes it worth the effort.

If you want a less common action to be employed, it must be more useful than the standard action, but only slightly. And it must require effort on the part of the player to execute. I don't have the books, but from the overview you've written, this kind of stunting does not seem to be supported in 4e.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm starting to think part of 4e's game balance relies heavily on using powers, and the improvised actions just don't measure up to them. What I'm wondering is how to keep the powers relevant, and still make improvised actions viable in the right circumstances, so that players will want to perform an action (sometimes) that is not based on a power.

This is why I have loosen up Powers a lot, I view Powers as not a single action but multiple actions built into a couple dice rolls. As such stuff like Skill Challenges, Acrobatic Tricks, pg. 42, etc. can be used in the middle of a Power.

So in your example, I could see the Rogue say... Use a Power; he shifts to launch himself at the chandelier, he crashes down into the Bugbear and shoves him into the brazier then finishes off the remaining aspect of the Power. Now this may seem overpowered but if you figure that if you fail the pg. 42 part, the Power is likely not to do anything or not completely. So it creates a bigger gamble and more cinematic experience and weaves more narrative with the Power.

But again I have to ask since D&D is a tactically based game...why risk it...do you give him a bonus to damage or something else that would make a player risk the added chance of failure (and if you do how do you balance the pay-off vs. the risk). The other thing though is that this is essentially using the power though, not an improvised action. It seems this is more along the lines of re-skinning the powers, am I interpreting this right?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well they are using a Power yes, but in addition to pg. 42 in this example within the Power itself. So, I a breaking up the components of a Power, and allowing the player to integrate other things into it. So it isn't use a Power or something else, it is; "okay how can I string together a Power, then pg 42, then Acrobatic Stunt and that in the end accomplishes a Skill Challenge".

So they are still using the improvised action but within a Power, or brought about because of the Power. Shifting as part of a Power so that you flung yourself off the edge of a walkway onto the chandelier is using a Power but also pg. 42.

 

[Imaro]

Well they are using a Power yes, but in addition to pg. 42 in this example within the Power itself. So, I a breaking up the components of a Power, and allowing the player to integrate other things into it. So it isn't use a Power or something else, it is; "okay how can I string together a Power, then pg 42, then Acrobatic Stunt and that in the end accomplishes a Skill Challenge".

So they are still using the improvised action but within a Power, or brought about because of the Power. Shifting as part of a Power so that you flung yourself off the edge of a walkway onto the chandelier is using a Power but also pg. 42.

Okay, so I think I get it...now do you have he player roll for the different actions or just roll for their power, and it's successful use completes the total string of actions?

I guess what I find odd in general about the way 4e does this is that with your prime attribute + weapon prof + 1/2 level + magic weapon, etc. it will almost always be better to just use a power. I guess this thought process is great for balance, because you're almost certain to know what the PC's will hit with, how much damage, etc... but in the genre of fantasy, especially adventure fantasy, it is far more likely for a hero to think up a clever solution to a problem or do something out of the ordinary...than to use the same power, skill, talent, etc. over and over again to save the day. I think this may be one of the reasons people claim it's videogamey [Please note I am not saying it is or it isn't, just presenting a tangential thought]...that is the only medium for fantasy stories that I can think of off-hand in which the above usage of the same powers over and over again is the norm.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

They would roll for the improvised action as well. My players use this a lot since it generally means more advantageous situation, it could mean say for the Rogue. He is concealed and has combat advantage, instead of walking down the stair case and being revealed this sudden assault from above with the chandelier may keep his combat advantage to deliver a sneak attack for instance, as well as knocking him into the brazier.

You mention video-games and in a way it is a good way I find from a player perspective to look at these things. They aren't separate entities that don't commingle they all roll up and to use a video-game term make "combos". So doing that pg. 42 means I can use that Power that means I will have room to do this Skill Challenge, stuff like that.

Now it obviously depends on what the environment is of course. This can dramatically effect the amount of non-Powers used. In a stark environment not much, but in a environment with lots of stuff it be used more often.