Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[pemerton]

The problem is D&D isn't fiction. It is not some predestined story where the author decides what happens. The DM doesn't just tell a story to a grou of people and call them players to just watch the action.

No, it's not the GM's story. That's why the rules give (limited) narrative control to the players.

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.

This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that playing a game as it is intended to be played is houseruling it!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

*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.

Not to me it would. Back in the day, I had a problem with hit point systems, in that any wound like you described would be at the very least crippling if not fatal given the standards of medical knowledge and higene in a medieval type society. I learned to get over it, to an extent because 'realism' is an illusion at best. But that kind of narration would drop me out of the story because for me hit points simply do not work as a physical repersentation of anything. There are too many ways to pick them apart.

So I prefer narrating hit points as something intangible, plot protection for the PCs. Nobody in D&D suffers crippling wounds. There are no one legged, one armed, one eyed fighters as pcs.

Now if you want a wound system it would be easy to add one but does anyone really want to play Blind Phew?

 

[pemerton]

IThat having been said, the DM's description would have been good GMing in any other edition of D&D.

No it wouldn't, because in 3E, without any magic, that PC could have been stabilised by a heal check and then recovered consciousness by natural healing in a day or two - which is utterly unrealistic.

4e, like 3E and earlier editions of D&D, requires care in narrating truly debilitating injuries, because it has such a relaxed approach to recovery.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

You people...

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.

I don't have a problem with fouth edition D&D, it abstracts things that I have always abstracted. Now you evidently do, and explainations by people that like 4e D&D do not appear to be satisfactry to you. So what exactly are you looking for?
If you don't like that much then play something you do like and are people twisting your arm and making you play 4th edition? Ignore people that are telling you that your opinion is wrong, its right for you, this is a game, people should be having fun, so have fun.
I don't like celery so I do not eat it ever. I presume you are the same with mustard.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Now if you want a wound system it would be easy to add one but does anyone really want to play Blind Phew?

*waves hand* Ok, maybe not blind - this isn't GURPS. However, there are plenty of ways to mechanically introduce the toll of a physical wound without resorting to 'you can't use your right arm.' The core rules already mention loss of healing surges. The inability to use an action point is another possibility - the character can't see important opportunities through the pain of her injuries. Ruling a character under 10 HP is slowed or weakened wouldn't be hard either.

I happen to be a huge fan of condition track systems, but I'll admit the main issue is that usually only the PCs are 'on stage' long enough for condition tracks to matter. HPs affect everyone equally. Still, the use of preset conditions that can be inflicted on characters through other means as part of a 'wound' system goes a long way toward evening the playing field in that way. I also like to know that when I hit something, I actually hit it, not just nicked it, grazed it or made it angry. Those fall into the 'miss' category for me. YMMV.

To drive this back toward the topic of the thread, predictable rider effects are one thing about 4E that I really appreciate. I love disarming, tripping, pushing around and otherwise screwing with enemies' heads in all RPGs, so that fact that this is flat-out encouraged in 4th edition is a bonus for me. I'll do it as a pure roleplaying tactic or as a power; it doesn't matter. Given the codified 'modern' gaming style versus the more spontaneous, GM-centric 'old-school' style, I think the fiddly bits of powers bring a lot back to the game. I'd still like to be able to try to trip every round, though. (BTW, I too am a martial artist and realize just how impossible that really is - that's why I game.)

 

[Thasmodious]

*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.

No. It wouldn't. The description does not match what is happening in the game. "Your spaceship is crashing because the pixelated fairy unicorns refuse to supply the hyperdrive with 20th century gasoline" is a poor description for a serious sci-fi setting in which a spaceship is actually crashing. It's even worse for a rousing game of Boot Hill.

Describing a PC reduced to 0 hit points, in 4e, as mortally wounded with bits of lung flying everywhere, his entrails grappling him, and his liver making a desperate bid for freedom out the dungeon door is a poor match for a system with leaders, healing powers, inspiring powers, healing surges, potions, the heal skill... 0 hit points does not equal mortal wound, character near death. It equals unconscious, requires attention before it gets serious.

"Bob backtracks as the orc presses the attack, his axe a whirl of slashes. Suddenly, an axe blow slips by Bob's shield and the rest of you hear a sickening crunch and see a spray of blood as the axe hits Bob in the chest. He falls slowly to the floor, facedown."

Warlord: "Bob! Remember the words I spoke to you and to all when the trolls of the Fens descended upon us and all hope was lost -
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in Waterdeep now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day!"

-inspiring word applied-

Bob raises his head slowly, the orc having turned his back on the fallen warrior, and through sheer will, he rises to his feet, his hand still gripped tight around his longsword, blood flowing beneath his dented breastplate and soaking his tunic. The orc senses this and turns around. Bob spits a wad of blood on the ground between them and grins, his teeth outlined in red.

That's a more fitting representation of description that matches up with the game mechanics at play.

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?

I enjoy DMing 4e because I understand the game system as it is and have not arbitrarily attached unwarranted and unsupported suppositions on top of the clear, concise rules and then contrived phony situations to illustrate non existant problems. But that's just me.

 

[lutecius]

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

And yet, having a limited control, narrative or otherwise, over something that used to be "at will" is not a gain.

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.

Yeah, so were flexible multiclassing and the end of vancian casting
Anyway, I was referring to the per-encounter/day mechanic but now you mention it, I also think many martial powers mostly exist for gamist reasons. Defenders must draw attacks, leaders must "heal" or move allies around… and to hell with consistency.
The flimsiness of some power descriptions and the lack of correlation between some attacks and their effects don’t scream "cinematically cool" to me.

I think you're wrong about this. Given Mearls past association with the Forge, and his knowledge and discussion of Forgist-techniques like PC Bangs on his blog, and given that Heinsoo expressly referred in an interview to the influence on 4e design of indie RPGs, the fact that 4e mechanics are highly similar to many indie RPG mechanics is almost certainly deliberate and not coincidental or an unintended side effect.

I might be wrong, but I’m still not convinced. The "narrative" benefits of the per-encounter/day system are pretty trivial compared to storytelling mechanics or even action points.
I’ve also read quite a few designer interviews, including the one you linked to. The only similarity with indie games Heinsoo mentions here is the emphasis on gameplay, not narration. And the one inspiration I read Mearls repeatedly mention was euro(board)games, not Sorcerer. Which actually reinforces my opinion that in this case, the "fortune in the middle" justification is just that, a justification for primarily gamist mechanics, not a goal in itself.

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

Nope.

You could have fooled me

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.

Has it? ever?
And even though you never played 4e, you’re the best judge of what arguments are ridiculous because…?
Please don’t take this as an attack but you often refer to your sig. Your posts though, are generally in line with what any 4e fan would say. And it’s okay. Just don’t use the fact that you never played 4e as an excuse. It’s not, and none is needed. PRIDE!

...Is that the crux of the arguement?

Good point but shush. Don’t bring the hp argument over here

 

[Fifth Element]

Has it? ever?

It certainly has. That's why I said "less often" rather than "never".

And even though you never played 4e, you’re the best judge of what arguments are ridiculous because…?

If an argument is ridiculous, it's ridiculous. I am quite familiar with 4E rules and when someone makes a claim that is wrong, I call it out. Someone recently claimed that in 4E, you can only select a level 6 power when you first reach level 6. Which is wrong, because 6 is only the minimum level. So that's plainly wrong, and it's ridiculous to use it as a point against 4E.

Please don’t take this as an attack but you often refer to your sig.

I have to. I was recently referred to as a fanboy for defending 4E like this: "4E's system is actually very similar to previous editions." My point being, all editions of D&D are enjoyable, and claiming 4E is not enjoyable because of a feature that is similar to previous editions is silly.

Your posts though, are generally in line with what any 4e fan would say.

I submit that has more to do with your perception than what I post.

Claiming that "any" 4E fan would say the same thing is ridiculous. 4E fans are as varied as 3E fans or fans of any other edition. Lumping them into some homogeneous group is ridiculous.

And it’s okay. Just don’t use the fact that you never played 4e as an excuse. It’s not, and none is needed. PRIDE!

And this helps how, exactly? Other than to demonstrate my point about your perception?

 

[justanobody]

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.

Since I have none of those "abilities" yet can continually do the same or more damage, not less after the initial hit.......too many splat books used, which is why you can do so many strange things with that edition.

The point still being that you shouldn't need all that crap from the powers system or something else to do something with common sense.

Yes common sense should play a part of games, otherwise why have rules at all.

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.

Too many ifs for my taste.

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.

At any point where there is a chance to do more damage once, and then less damage for the same thing there is a problem, when the chance of succeeding has gone up, not down and all other variables remain the same.

I hit you in the head with a hammer 3 times and it does the same damage each time. The fourth time I hit you it does more damage, then the 5th time it somehow does less that the fourth.

There is a problem with that progression, unless the fifth time there is nothing left to damage and all possible damage that could be done, has been done.

So whether me hitting you, or you hitting me...pick one as PC and the other as monster it doesn't matter....the same thing will hold true throughout and if it doesn't then something has broken within the system and the rules....the game physics have broken.

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

This is something I strongly am against. Players only get to decide what they want to do, and with that have more narrative control over anything the DM has, as the DM only sets up chances. The players don't get to choose they are hungry so they must eat to use power Y that grants 10 HP when eating.

What if they are full and cannot eat? No amount of "narrative control" can solve this issue.

The players decide when they can do something by trying to do it and succeeding. This is a major flaw I see in the design of the powers system, and one I do not care for.

Players can try to do anything, but the DM and judge of the world should be the one deciding if conditions are right.

Why not just remove the DM completely if all they are is a dice checker to verify rolls vs a table of outcomes or probable chances of success.

Players can't have everything. This isn't Chutes and Ladders with small children to cry because they fell down a ladder.

I also don't need some power to tell me what I want to try to do. I don't need it to flavor my game for me, because I am intelligent enough to state tot he DM I was to jump over the table and impale my opponent with my javelin.

I don't need a named power to try, and see no reason a player of mine should need that limitation either. Because without that named power, then they are limited in what they can do, and how many times they can, otherwise until the javelin is lost/broken, and the run out of table, my players can jump over as many times as they want stabbing whoever they want.

I give them that extra narrative control where the powers hold the players back, and deny it from them with its arbitrary limits.

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.

I don't recall quoting this, but maybe it has to go with the section above, so use that for a response to this quote, unless I figure out what and edit later what I was going to say here.

No, it's not the GM's story. That's why the rules give (limited) narrative control to the players.

I don't like giving silly limits to players for no reason. Only one person never got firebuilding NWP. They just couldn't give me a reason why their character could build a fire. It actually turned into a great game device since it was built into their character that they couldn't figure out how to build a fire in ANY circumstances.

Once again like powers, some strange and silly limit on the number of things a player has a chance to do, that doesn't belong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Since I have none of those "abilities" yet can continually do the same or more damage, not less after the initial hit.......

Hmm? A 4E character who doesn't have a high-damage daily behaves the same way. His at-will powers deal about the same damage each time.

too many splat books used, which is why you can do so many strange things with that edition.

Smite Evil comes straight from the PHB.

At any point where there is a chance to do more damage once, and then less damage for the same thing there is a problem, when the chance of succeeding has gone up, not down and all other variables remain the same.

I hit you in the head with a hammer 3 times and it does the same damage each time. The fourth time I hit you it does more damage, then the 5th time it somehow does less that the fourth.

You mean like if the 3E fighter, who deals 1d8+4 with his hammer, rolls three 4s for 8 damage each, then rolls a critical for 25 damage, then rolls another 4 for 8 damage again?

I don't like giving silly limits to players for no reason. Only one person never got firebuilding NWP. They just couldn't give me a reason why their character could build a fire. It actually turned into a great game device since it was built into their character that they couldn't figure out how to build a fire in ANY circumstances.

Once again like powers, some strange and silly limit on the number of things a player has a chance to do, that doesn't belong.

I'm confused - are you saying this was a 'great game device', or a 'strange and silly limit'?

-Hyp.