Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[Mad Mac]

1) Status effects over damage. In general if you have a power that does damage vs a power that does less damage and has a rider effect, the second one wins. I think it’s the fact that the damaging powers don’t do enough damage, the difference isn’t that great, and the rider effects are often a lot of fun.

I agree that this is one of the biggest problems. There are good damage powers, and it can be worth taking the damage option sometimes, (you have to actually kill the monster eventually, afterall) but too often, you have Damage+Effect vs Damage+5 and no effect. I mean....come on. One extra die isn't a fair trade most of the time.

Powers pretty much dictate the classes adn their roles, and there are so few that really separate the classes, such as those of utility use. I don't really know what utility power a fighter could have as the melee classes are mainly for combat, but this is something I have been trying to figure out, and would guess game makers have to, for years. As many have said the powers boils down to only a few things:

-Damage
-Damage+Effect
-Effect

Zzzzzzz

This though, I think is unfair. You could classify almost any spell/power system the same way. 4th edition just breaks things down to the point where this a bit more obvious. The abilities may all read the same, but the differences are much bigger in play, and each class definately has a "theme" when it comes to power design.

Now, I do think the core rulebook is destined to be much more conservative about power design compared to what is going to come later, which is a bit disappointing, but it's probably invevitible. Just like 3rd edition, we're going to get more cool and experimental stuff in the later products, as the designers become more comfortable with the system. Hopefully the power source splats (Eg Martial Power) will be creative enough to keep the older classes from being too overshadowed by the later stuff.

 

[justanobody]

What I mean by those 3 things is that that is all you get to do with no diversity.

Sure MM no longer has to worry if it has enough force to knock over a vase, but those things are player options that are taken away when a power/spell/etc can only be used in combat for exactly what it says it does.

I think there is one that heals an ally when you do some damage. Good if you are in combat, bad if that is the only thing you have to heal someone with without a short/extended rest because you don't have time for either.

So it is fine that they try to spell out what you can do, but they got too confined with it, and left no room for creating other ways of using things like powers.

Pretty much everything is combat only, unless it is a ritual which is class-independent.

So the only thing a fighter can do as a fighter is during combat, etc.

That is what I meant by the 3 things the powers do. Damage, Damage/Effect, Effect

They are severely limited in creativity for a player to do anything with other than use in combat. And the repetitive nature of the powers throughout the classes: X damage and/or Y effect is all the powers are. So why have ones for each class if they are the same things? Just give a global power list and make some class specific powers that separate the classes, and do more that target and enemy or ally.

I want to be able to shoot that vase in combat to trigger the trap the rogue laid before the baddies got into the room while also shooting a baddie at the same time with the power that gives me a second shot. But this power may only let me target enemies.

The vase pissed me off so it is now my enemy!

 

[Remathilis]

Part of the power systems charm/failure (depending on who you ask) is its homogeneous treating of character actions.

Comparing not to 4e, but to SAGA (which clearly looks like a 3e/4e transition piece now) it was clear the change from dynamic "saves" to static "defenses" would require attackers to have some form or escalating bonus (how base attack functioned vs AC attacks). Saga tried to handle this by using a split system (Bab for "attacks", skill checks for Force/Magic) but that proved to be slightly unbalanced (Force Users dominate at low levels, are useless at high) so the decision was made to have EVERYTHING (AC, Def, Attacks, Skills) raise the same rate.

That meant attacks (be it a longsword or a magic missile) raised equally, only differing by ability score modifier and perhaps misc bonuses. (Which lead to a really weird situation where an eladrin wizard with a decent str and decent Int had a better to-hit with his longsword than his spells )

Now, to top the fact that the effect of most powers is damage + effect and effect can be broken down into a few possible options:

+ Foe receives negative status ailment (weakened, slowed, dazed, etc)
+ Ally/Self gets beneficial boost (bonuses, healing, etc).
+ Ally/Self can shift/move
+ Foe is moved against his own will.

That's 90% of all powers in a nutshell. While the specific combination of ability attack, vs defense, damage, effect, and misc may differ; each ends up feeling similar to the next (within the parameters of variance) and thus, the classes themselves feel similar. (The differences between classes is on emphasis, not element. A wizard emphasizes ranged elemental attacks that target multiple foes with negative status ailments and the fighter emphasizes melee attacks that target a single foe for larger damage and perhaps a status ailment, but at the end of the day, they are both making a modified ability check to deal an amount of damage and perhaps a status ailment).

 

[Mad Mac]

What I mean by those 3 things is that that is all you get to do with no diversity.

Sure MM no longer has to worry if it has enough force to knock over a vase, but those things are player options that are taken away when a power/spell/etc can only be used in combat for exactly what it says it does.

I think there is one that heals an ally when you do some damage. Good if you are in combat, bad if that is the only thing you have to heal someone with without a short/extended rest because you don't have time for either.

Eh? There is nothing preventing you from targeting a vase, unless your DM is being pendatic. And most classes have a good number of out of combat abilities. Your Cleric may only be able to cast Healing Strike when he hits an enemy, but he can use the (better for healing) Healing Word power all day long.

I kind of get what you're saying, but you are focusing on edge cases that don't come up very often, and can be handled pretty easily by DM intervention if they become important for some reason.

Now, to top the fact that the effect of most powers is damage + effect and effect can be broken down into a few possible options:

+ Foe receives negative status ailment (weakened, slowed, dazed, etc)
+ Ally/Self gets beneficial boost (bonuses, healing, etc).
+ Ally/Self can shift/move
+ Foe is moved against his own will.

You are missing + Zones/Conjurations/Summoning. We don't have a huge number of these powers yet, but they are becoming more common. Also, every character has up to 7 utility powers that lets him do a lot of misc stuff, including flight, invisibility, ect.

We are seeing new stuff as well, with the Bard Preview, and the Barbarian's Rage subsystem, and the PHB 2 pretty much promises to bring us new rules for shapeshifting, animal companions, and probably summoning. At that point, we aren't missing much in terms of 3rd edition magic effects except save or dies, and they were very intentionally removed.

I get what you're saying as far as all classes using the same combat resolution system, but that just doesn't bother me much, if at all. *shrug*

 

[justanobody]

I kind of get what you're saying, but you are focusing on edge cases that don't come up very often, and can be handled pretty easily by DM intervention if they become important for some reason.

Those edges are where I live when I play D&D. I take a spell that has no requirements for targets, and make new uses for it. I take a rogue and make weird combinations of actions to do something with that may be similar to something I would do in combat, but there is no fight, just for mobility to get from point A to point B.

I feel stifled in what I can do with telling me what I can or cannot do in some of the powers. The worst offenders are those that attack Will, Reflex, Fortitude, that really an inanimate object doesn't have, but the spell itself, and the concept of the power could be used in other ways.

 

[Mad Mac]

Those edges are where I live when I play D&D. I take a spell that has no requirements for targets, and make new uses for it. I take a rogue and make weird combinations of actions to do something with that may be similar to something I would do in combat, but there is no fight, just for mobility to get from point A to point B.

If you're playing with edge cases all the time, it's going to come down to your DM more than the rules, even in 3rd edition. In the case of inanimate objects, I don't see what the problem is, unless you're trying to smash a vase in order to activate healing strike, or something. Or Eyebite a door, maybe.

Inanimate objects actually do have Reflex and Fort defenses, they just aren't effected by will based attacks.

 

[justanobody]

If you're playing with edge cases all the time, it's going to come down to your DM more than the rules, even in 3rd edition. In the case of inanimate objects, I don't see what the problem is, unless you're trying to smash a vase in order to activate healing strike, or something. Or Eyebite a door, maybe.

Inanimate objects actually do have Reflex and Fort defenses, they just aren't effected by will based attacks.

Eyebite a door! That's a good one.

I didn't know they had reflex saves. If a vase is dodging then I better be able to target it. Stupid goblin hiding inside it is in for a rude awakening.

Actually 3rd leaves a lot of room still for spells for one, since there was nothing exactly related for powers for say fighters. There were so many that had combat and utility use depending on how you used them, just like the older editions. It just seems so few things that don't surround combat use.

I don't expect to Feeb a vase, but should be able to Feather Fall one. 4th makes it creature only, no more objects.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I don't expect to Feeb a vase, but should be able to Feather Fall one. 4th makes it creature only, no more objects.

Well, you could look into the errata:

Target [Addition]
Player’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers
include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature
can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential
target.”

In most cases, these things depend on your DM - I'd certainly allow feather fall on a vase - especially as the DMG generally encourages creative actions (just see page 42!).

Cheers, LT.

 

[justanobody]

Well, you could look into the errata:

At the DM’s discretion

In most cases, these things depend on your DM - I'd certainly allow feather fall on a vase - especially as the DMG generally encourages creative actions (just see page 42!).

Cheers, LT.

Oh goody! extra out of game time.

I also don't carry errata around with me everywhere, nor is there always access to a PDF file reader.

I like hardcopies so I can find this crap quicker!

Anywho...Feather Fall should be allowed, by getting other things to work would be more difficult because "sense" is hard to fight for in D&D where magic overrules it and can do less than common sense.

I would just think there should be things less devoted to being created with a combat influence.

Let the powers exist and be used however the player chooses. This isn't Warhammer RPG afterall, where the RP comes after the minis game.

I like wiggle room from games.

 

[Ryndal]

I commend the OP for an outstanding analysis. For someone to think that much about a topic and then to post a well written analysis makes this board worth reading.

The only issue I have with the analysis of the OP is that not every one reads boards and not everyone tries to mathematically optimize their characters. I am currently running the Rise of the Runelords AP (converted to 4th ed) and I know that 4 of the 5 players would never read a message board or try to figure out what is the "best" for their character. They all choose powers that sound "unique" and "interesting" to them as they read them. They are making zero effort to pre-plan their characters. As a DM, I try to adjust encounters accordingly.

I expect the OP is right for the many people that read these boards and want to be "optimal". I know, however, that there are some folks who neither read boards nor optimize.

Thats probably a good topic to be forked. What percentage of D/D players spend significant time "optimizing" their characters?