Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[EnglishScribe]

Well, you could look into the errata:

Originally Posted by 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.”

Cheers, LT.

The fact this this is erreta and not in the core rulebooks to begin with, to me, shows that there are fundamental problems with the design-development-editing cycle at Wotc.

I think that the design of the power system (the mechanics of descripting a power) is excellent, but I also think that the development on top of that design is very poor.

If I where managing that team the designer whould have been promoted and the developer fired.

 

[justanobody]

The fact this this is errata and not in the core rulebooks to begin with, to me, shows that there are fundamental problems with the design-development-editing cycle at WotC.

I think that the design of the power system (the mechanics of describing a power) is excellent, but I also think that the development on top of that design is very poor.

If I were managing that team the designer would have been promoted and the developer fired.

Or maybe the editor that decided to save a few bucks by removing all the instances of "or object(s)" from the book to save space and ink.

Maybe that is where all that white-space comes from adding extra pages/cost to the books?

 

[monboesen]

Let the powers exist and be used however the player chooses.

As far as I'm concerned that is exactly what 4ed recommends the DM to do.

 

[MINI]

I'm an exclusive on line player and I think powers has had its effects on online play, but not really the ones desired. Speaking soley from the mindane apsect of being a player powers add alot of work to the game. In older editions you might have played a wizard and you realized ther was more work involved in tracking your spells, but with 4e every character is similar to a wizard because each have powers to track and some players just don't really want to deal with all of that.


Something I kept hearing before 4e came out was hw it would make online play eaiser and i think this is a flase statement. When playing online you have to type nearly everything in and do all your die rolling by entering it into chat or setting up macros. The short of it is that 4e is alot more work and combats can be fairly slow if you don'y ride your players to prepare thier actions well ahead of time.

I do think the powers are alot of fun and the system is well made, but its not for every group and its not 'geared' towards online play as i had heard it might be before it came out.

 

[RefinedBean]

Outstanding OP! Good discussion so far, too.

I've never had a problem with using powers outside of combat. Hell, in a converted Age of Worms game that a friend is using, one Wizard PC used his daily Sleep spell on him and an ally to better pretend to be corpses (long story). Worked like a charm!

That issue is wholly reliant on your DM, methinks.

 

[WhatGravitas]

That issue is wholly reliant on your DM, methinks.

True. Due to the codified nature of the 4E powers, a DM can much easier shut down player creativity - you really need a DM who embraces the DMG philosophy of "Yes, and...", otherwise 4E is really a lot more wargame-y than the previous editions.

That's probably a big thing about the power system and the perception of it - the skill and attitude of the DM, the power system is certainly sort of DM-empowering, because it requires DM discretion for creativity, whereas other system start off with more freeform versions, empowering the player's freeform capabilities.

This is, obviously, a paradigm shift, design-wise, as well as DM-wise, as he has to adjucate differently (concerning abilities):
Previously, he had to "keep it sane", i.e. reigning in bad interpretations of spells, abilities and so on.
Now, it is "kept sane", and the DM has to encourage creative use instead of reigning it in.

Cheers, LT.

 

[monboesen]

Now, it is "kept sane", and the DM has to encourage creative use instead of reigning it in.

And I consider that a good thing. It hopefully shifts the DM role to the more positive: Hell Yeah! that sounds cool rather than being forced to the negative: No Way! I'm not going to allow that spell/feat/class etc.

 

[RefinedBean]

And I consider that a good thing. It hopefully shifts the DM role to the more positive: Hell Yeah! that sounds cool rather than being forced to the negative: No Way! I'm not going to allow that spell/feat/class etc.

As a 4E DM, I've found I have to be more pro-active about telling my players what IS allowed, rather than what isn't!

As LT said, it's a very codified system, and many players (at the beginning, myself included) can certainly feel that they are restricted. Why would anyone use Cleave outside of combat, for instance?

But the uses ARE there, and it's up to the DM to make sure the players know the system is merely the tools they use to create the game, and not the other way around. Once you separate the powers from combat, it's much easier to get this across in 4E.

 

[Remathilis]

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*

Actually, I'm VERY looking forward to the PHB2 and X Power line for expanding powers beyond what they are now. Specifically, I'm looking forward to summons, shapechanging, etc. The last thing I hope they bring back are more charm/control powers and more illusions that do more than fancy psychic damage + effect (daze, stun) powers.

My point in bringing up the combat resolution system is the weirdness of wizards having good "to hits" now, since they need them for magic. In fact, there is little difference between a wizard, rogue, and fighter all striking with a weapon (barring strength score differences) which seems a bit of an oddity left over from the new resolution mechanic. It is nice to see melee characters (monks, rogues, etc) who can hit at higher levels though.

The final thing I hope to see is more powers that don't need to do damage to be useful. Sleep is a classic example; it slows then knocks out a foe in combat without doing a single hp worth of damage. More powers that create unique effects like that would go a long way to breaking the "do X and Y (save ends) saminess of powers across different levels and classes.

 

[justanobody]

As a 4E DM, I've found I have to be more pro-active about telling my players what IS allowed, rather than what isn't!

Rather than the past where the players could come up with things on their own and you just needed to make a ruling on it at the moment, don't you feel like you may need to feed ideas of what things can be used for now that everything is so focused on specific things it can do?

So the DM actually has to do more work to try to get players to do things differently now, rather than the past where they just had to make sure that some crazy idea didn't break a power because of creative thinking that the designers missed.

One of the most damage causing spells I ever used in the past was Stone to Mud and its reverse. Plus it could be used to open doors/walls/etc.

Granted it doesn't exist now, but an instant kill spell from a utility spell is what I call creativity!

Keep the filthy fireballs. Who needs a magic campfire anyway.