Libramarian
Adventurer
4e is said to offer nonpareil support for improvisational combat, in the form of the chart on page 42. I think this page is overrated.
What pg. 42 does is give you Easy, Moderate, and Hard DCs for PC level, and average At-Will and Encounter monster damage for that level. The procedure for handling an improvised action is that you choose an Easy, Moderate or Hard DC, and then you choose whether it's something that can be done every round (at-will-ish damage) or something that can be done only rarely (encounter-ish damage).
Let's call a spade a spade. This is not some kind of special support for improvisation. This is just making sure it doesn't bone up the system math.
The procedure here is not the same as what I think of as improvisational combat. First of all, the player is supposed to be negotiating with the DM when they're desperate, when their typical routine isn't good enough. Improvisation is supposed to be substantially more effective than their typical thing (at least the player hopes so). But pg. 42 ensures that the DM doesn't "give away too much damage". It's balanced to be equally or less effective than typical Power usage.
Secondly, there are inferences here that make no sense. Why does DC increase with character level, no matter what they're trying to do? The example given is grabbing a chandelier and kicking an ogre into a brazier of burning coals. Why does the chandelier become harder to grab as the character goes up in level, moving in lockstep with their increasing Acrobatics skill? Why does the example have the DM choosing Easy difficulty because they want to "encourage" the action, rather than thinking about how hard it is? Why does the brazier become more damaging to the ogre as the character goes up in level? Why does the DM choose low or high damage based on whether the action can be done regularly or rarely, which has no direct connection to how damaging the thing is in the game-world?
Ad hoc actions should be resolved on an ad hoc basis, using general system elements to describe what is going on. You're trying to push someone into a brazier. OK, Strength vs. Strength. Normal fire does 1d6 damage per round. Perhaps a saving throw to see if their clothes catch fire? What are they wearing? A morale check to see if they stop fighting and run around screaming? What kind of morale do they have?
It's not the same thing to just say: sure do whatever you want; to-hit and damage based on the average monster of your level. Pg. 42 is too much of a shortcut. It misses the two things I enjoy most about improvised combat: being more effective than typical, and having the chance to "zoom in" on the fictional details of the scene and judge how they work.
P.S.
What I think of as an improvisational combat action I want to call a "trick". I've heard it referred to as "stunting". Maybe we can make a distinction here between tricks and stunts, relating to the distinction made here last month of combat as war vs. combat as sport. A trick is an improvised action designed to actually be substantially more effective than typical combat, but is subject to be adjudicated according to the DM's notions about the physical reality of the scene. A stunt is an improvised action designed to be flashy and expressive, not necessarily any more or less effective than typical combat. You're not trying to "beat the system", you just want to slap a little awesomesauce on it. I can understand how giving the DM exclusive power to approve and deny stunts, as opposed to tricks, would feel unnecessary and meddling.
What pg. 42 does is give you Easy, Moderate, and Hard DCs for PC level, and average At-Will and Encounter monster damage for that level. The procedure for handling an improvised action is that you choose an Easy, Moderate or Hard DC, and then you choose whether it's something that can be done every round (at-will-ish damage) or something that can be done only rarely (encounter-ish damage).
Let's call a spade a spade. This is not some kind of special support for improvisation. This is just making sure it doesn't bone up the system math.
The procedure here is not the same as what I think of as improvisational combat. First of all, the player is supposed to be negotiating with the DM when they're desperate, when their typical routine isn't good enough. Improvisation is supposed to be substantially more effective than their typical thing (at least the player hopes so). But pg. 42 ensures that the DM doesn't "give away too much damage". It's balanced to be equally or less effective than typical Power usage.
Secondly, there are inferences here that make no sense. Why does DC increase with character level, no matter what they're trying to do? The example given is grabbing a chandelier and kicking an ogre into a brazier of burning coals. Why does the chandelier become harder to grab as the character goes up in level, moving in lockstep with their increasing Acrobatics skill? Why does the example have the DM choosing Easy difficulty because they want to "encourage" the action, rather than thinking about how hard it is? Why does the brazier become more damaging to the ogre as the character goes up in level? Why does the DM choose low or high damage based on whether the action can be done regularly or rarely, which has no direct connection to how damaging the thing is in the game-world?
Ad hoc actions should be resolved on an ad hoc basis, using general system elements to describe what is going on. You're trying to push someone into a brazier. OK, Strength vs. Strength. Normal fire does 1d6 damage per round. Perhaps a saving throw to see if their clothes catch fire? What are they wearing? A morale check to see if they stop fighting and run around screaming? What kind of morale do they have?
It's not the same thing to just say: sure do whatever you want; to-hit and damage based on the average monster of your level. Pg. 42 is too much of a shortcut. It misses the two things I enjoy most about improvised combat: being more effective than typical, and having the chance to "zoom in" on the fictional details of the scene and judge how they work.
P.S.
What I think of as an improvisational combat action I want to call a "trick". I've heard it referred to as "stunting". Maybe we can make a distinction here between tricks and stunts, relating to the distinction made here last month of combat as war vs. combat as sport. A trick is an improvised action designed to actually be substantially more effective than typical combat, but is subject to be adjudicated according to the DM's notions about the physical reality of the scene. A stunt is an improvised action designed to be flashy and expressive, not necessarily any more or less effective than typical combat. You're not trying to "beat the system", you just want to slap a little awesomesauce on it. I can understand how giving the DM exclusive power to approve and deny stunts, as opposed to tricks, would feel unnecessary and meddling.
