Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[Phaezen]

Originally quoted from this article:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4spot/20081112a

Wizards of the Coast: Let’s take a step back into general 4th Edition design philosophy… what can you tell us about the rationale for “power sources”—why were they created, what did you hope to accomplish with them, and how is the “martial” power source best defined?
Rob Heinsoo: Power sources are a way of describing the magical rules and flavor of our world while grouping classes who share some fundamental aspect of their approach to their power. The D&D world already contained the notion that some characters used arcane magic while others used divine magic; we just extended that notion to cover all our characters and to organize our class creation as the game develops over the years.

Power sources give everyone magical abilities across the classes. That doesn't represent reality, or the genre. Power sources are where the powers are derived from, so the concept that a fighter is using some innate magic ability to perform these power is the furthest thing I want from a fighter to be doing. There is no option within the powers system to allow for a fighter, or any other class that doesn't use magic unless they just forsake taking any powers, and then you would have people griping they are "not effective in combat".

A winning argument, too be sure. However, if you were to look at the paragraph after the one you quoted:

Martial classes get most of their personal power from skill that may start as innate but increases as a matter of constant training. Compared to all the other power sources, the martial power source doesn’t tend to look or feel magical. But since it’s the type of highly skilled weapon training that occurs in a world that’s full of magic, there are effects created by highly skilled martial characters that would certainly seem magical if they were occurring in our world. Unlike all the other power sources, the powers used by martial characters don’t have obvious magical special effects, no flashing auras, or looming spirits, or rays and bolts, or even after-effect images of an incredibly fast sword. Martial powers look like powers that a warrior or rogue in our non-magical world might use, even if they accomplish things that people in our world would have almost no chance of accomplishing.

Martial power comes from the innate skill and training. IN the same way the abilities of a skilled performer (acrobat, gymnast, olympic athlete, stunt artist, musician, etc, etc, etc) may appear magical and beyond the abilities of the common man in the street. From paragon tier onwards, the powers do start gaining a bit of a extraordinary or supernatural feeling, but then again at these levels your hero is more than a mere human.

Phaezen

 

[justanobody]

Originally quoted from this article:

Spotlight Interview - Martial Power

A winning argument, too be sure. However, if you were to look at the paragraph after the one you quoted:

Compared to all the other power sources, the martial power source doesn’t tend to look or feel magical.

Martial power comes from the innate skill and training. IN the same way the abilities of a skilled performer (acrobat, gymnast, olympic athlete, stunt artist, musician, etc, etc, etc) may appear magical and beyond the abilities of the common man in the street. From paragon tier onwards, the powers do start gaining a bit of a extraordinary or supernatural feeling, but then again at these levels your hero is more than a mere human.

Phaezen

But it does look and feel magical. It looks like a spell list. It feels as though there is something that causes you to only be able to perform these stunts other than skill or ability.

Again take Crushing Blow. Why in the world can it only be done once, if skill and training in doing so was so the reason for further "access" to this power source, that over the time while they were so able to learn new powers, that require more strength and such that they were not able to increase their endurance to lift the hammer over there head but one time?

That wreaks of Vancian casting for all classes, which is founded in magic.

So the only way to explain out this arbitrary restriction is that the powers are magical in nature, and each person only has so much magical energy in their "power pool".

Add onto that that you can only ever learn 4 of each of the powers, 7 for utilities, and only two bolstered basic attacks in the form of at-wills.

Let alone just the fighter, but it makes them seem less consistent in being able to do anything, and the powers are not that grand when they happen, and become redundant for the fact that you are limited by Vancian casting as to how many you can do within a given time, that is not bound by any of your physical abilities such as your strength, intelligence, etc.

If I place myself into the position of a character, I would be questioning why this is so. As a player it just seems too wonky even knowing why it is so that it has to be explained off just as some balancing act.

Could an acrobat not perform the same trick twice?

Tumble to the left of the stage, oops cannot tumble back because you are out of uses, so you better quick walk over there for the next trick.

That is what training is all about to gain not just more abilities, but more use of the abilities you already have.

This is lost in the martial powers, and the entire powers system.

 

[garyh]

So the only way to explain out this arbitrary restriction is that the powers are magical in nature, and each person only has so much magical energy in their "power pool".

That is NOT the only explanation. Phaezen presented a perfectly reasonable explanation of how this system can represent real world combat styles.

In 3.x, the fighter would take a feat that would let him do a cool move in a certain situation. That situation might come up once a fight, once a day, or once in a blue moon. It was up to the DM how often the character was in that situation, and thus how often the power could be used.

4e just lets the player learn an exploit, then say at reasonable intervals "I see an opening to use my cool move now." It empowers the player.

 

[justanobody]

That is NOT the only explanation. Phaezen presented a perfectly reasonable explanation of how this system can represent real world combat styles.

In 3.x, the fighter would take a feat that would let him do a cool move in a certain situation. That situation might come up once a fight, once a day, or once in a blue moon. It was up to the DM how often the character was in that situation, and thus how often the power could be used.

4e just lets the player learn an exploit, then say at reasonable intervals "I see an opening to use my cool move now." It empowers the player.

Then call me an , but as a DM I wouldn't allow anyone to ever use their martial powers, because I would prevent them from getting into a situation that allows it.

Sorry fighter no powers for you because you couldn't get everyone to stand around you.

That is the crap hand-waiving explanations I dislike in games.

If the fighter attack is going to require X number of people around to pull it off, you better define a range for X. Not just "all enemies in range".

So magical forced pulled them from that square to where I am?

It doesn't fly.

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.

See any opening you think you see, but you will have to truly argue your case like anything else with me.

I don't see the powers in any way as you might be in the right situation to use them, because none really have any requirement to do so.

You need but one target to try to affect two....

I say if you don't have two targets then you can't even use the power. But that would go against the idea of powers in 4th and penalize a player for choosing a power until a time they can use it under the proper conditions, or gain a level in which they can retrain it.

There are just too many problems with the way powers are handled, and what they represent.

I have had grizzly that tasted less gamey than these powers.

 

[garyh]

If you want a game where fighters officially do only basic attacks and otherwise do whatever wacky thing you can convince the DM makes sense, then maybe 1e is the game for you. It doesn't sound like 4e is your type of game. You seem to be projecting your interpretations onto the system such that it sounds like it wouldn't be much fun for you ("fighter powers must be magical," "psionics must work like X", and so forth).

 

[Timeboxer]

That is the crap hand-waiving explanations I dislike in games.

...

There are just too many problems with the way powers are handled, and what they represent.

I think it's very clear what powers represent; I suspect you just don't like it, which is fine. Especially for martial-type powers, there's a shift in control of the narrative from the GM to the player. If you want tight control of narrative -- that is, if you create the sandbox and you don't like the idea of players adding more sand -- then 4E is not the system for you.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then call me an , but as a DM I wouldn't allow anyone to ever use their martial powers, because I would prevent them from getting into a situation that allows it.

You're an . Not sure what you typed there, but since you asked nicely...

You don't like player empowerment. Fine. 4E is clearly not for you. I think it's time to move on. Now perhaps we can have a 4E thread without you telling everyone how much it sucks?

And really, when a player has something neat their character can do, you as a DM work to ensure that it can never be used? I hate that DMing style. Defeats the purpose of playing in my book. A party full of rogues? Constructs and oozes for them. The wizard has put together a nice combo of cold-based spells? I'll just make sure everything they fight has cold resistance.

 

[pukunui]

I think it's very clear what powers represent; I suspect you just don't like it, which is fine. Especially for martial-type powers, there's a shift in control of the narrative from the GM to the player. If you want tight control of narrative -- that is, if you create the sandbox and you don't like the idea of players adding more sand -- then 4E is not the system for you.

You don't like player empowerment.

I fail to see how 4e's power system gives players more control of the narrative. Frankly, I see it as being quite the opposite.

If I have an ability that can be used as many times as I want, then I can choose to use it as many or as few times as I want ... but if I have an ability that I can only use once an encounter or once a day, while I can still choose when to use it, I am being told that I cannot choose to use it more than once an encounter or once a day ... I don't find that empowering at all. I find that extremely limiting.

If the narrative calls for my character to go tumbling across the stage and then tumbling back again, I can do that in 3e and in SWSE, but apparently I can only do that in 4e if I'm a rogue and then I can only do it once during the encounter on the stage. How am I empowered in this situation? How am I adding to the DM's sandbox by choosing to use my tumble to cross the stage in one direction and then having to walk back to my starting point because I apparently can't tumble again, even if it would be appropriate to the narrative to be able to do so?

What makes it even worse is the idea that if I miss - at least with encounter powers - I not only fail to perform the action I wanted to perform but I cannot immediately attempt to try it again ... which is not at all realistic, especially not with things like tumbling.

Yes, in previous editions the DM could put limits on my otherwise limitless abilities but s/he can still do the same thing in 4e by setting things up so I can't use my powers in a given situation.

 

[Phaezen]

If the narrative calls for my character to go tumbling across the stage and then tumbling back again, I can do that in 3e and in SWSE, but apparently I can only do that in 4e if I'm a rogue and then I can only do it once during the encounter on the stage. How am I empowered in this situation? How am I adding to the DM's sandbox by choosing to use my tumble to cross the stage in one direction and then having to walk back to my starting point because I apparently can't tumble again, even if it would be appropriate to the narrative to be able to do so?

You can tumble across the stage as often as you can make your athletics check.

However, you can use the tumble power to shift up to half your movement once per encounter. At level 6 you can take Ignoble Escape and shift up to your speed once an encounter when you are marked as well. These require no checks and are both move actions. Any additional fast shifting is covered by acrobatic stunt, I would give 1/2 speed for a move action DC dependant on level of the monster you are avoiding, easy for minions, medium for standard, hard for elites and solo's, increase by DC by 5 or 10 to shift full speed if you are level 7 or higher. PHB page 180, DMG page 42, checking the rule balance, equivalent to a lower level encounter power with the possbility of failing, whereas there is no possibility of failing if you use the power.

Some things are covered by your Powers, for everything else there is page 42 of the DMG.

Phaezen

 

[pukunui]

Sorry ... tumbling was a bad example (or perhaps it would be better to say that naming a power "Tumble" was a bad decision on WotC's part).

I think my main point still stands though - as a player, I don't feel empowered or more in control of the narrative using 4e's powers system. I feel less in control because the actual rules system - as opposed to the DM - is putting these arbitrary limits on what I can do and how often I can do it. I can reason with the DM and say, "Hey, look, I've got this cool ability and I'd actually like to be able to use it ... do you think you could give me some opportunities to do so in future encounters?" I can't reason with the ruleset. It just is the way it is and I have to either convince my DM to house rule it or just put up with it.

Mind you, this issue only really irks me as it relates to the Martial power source. I don't find it problematic in relation to magic ... and I don't have a problem with the way it's done in SWSE because in that system, the encounter/daily limits are almost always applied to abilities that involve an element of chance/luck or Force usage.

Being told that I can only use a certain spell/Force power once per encounter/day is OK. I can rationalize that by saying that it requires a great deal of stamina and I need to rest before I can use it again or whatever. (Also, with Force powers at least, the system also allows you to use spent Force powers again through a few mechanics that can be said to represent the Force being with you or that you got lucky or whatever.) Being told that I can only negate a hit once per day because I got lucky and the shot ricocheted off my belt buckle or whatever is OK too as it explicitly involves an element of randomness. But being told that I can only garrote someone and use them as a living shield once per day for no apparent reason just doesn't do it for me. You can argue that it's a difficult maneuver to set up, but that implies the involvement of forces outside of my control - be it luck or magic or whatever - and there is no suggestion of that in the power's description. If I have been trained in garroting people and using them as shields, then I should be able to do it as many times as I want/need to and/or the narrative calls for it. Either that or the power should specifically state: "You got lucky. The circumstances were just right ..."