Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[vagabundo]

This is where page 42 of the DMG comes into play. As the example of the Acrobatics check and the chandelier shows, the GM is meant to set DCs for non-power-based stunts that reflect not just the difficulty of the action in the gameworld, but the suitability of the action to the narrative (ie do we as a gaming table want to see more or less of this sort of stuff going on?).

I think this part of GMing 4e is actually quite challenging, because it can affect the mechanical balance of the game if the GM is not careful to keep stunting at a lower level of effectiveness than powers, but it can affect the narrative satisfactoriness of the game if the GM is not highly permissive in allowing all sorts of stunting.

Pukuni, I hope I'm right in remembering that you've followed a lot of LostSoul's threads on how to use page 42 to handle this sort of thing. I'm going to start GMing 4e fairly soon, and will certainly be relying on a lot of LostSoul's ideas for guidance and inspiration.

One thing I'd like to add here, and it is something I initially missed, is that the tumble utility is an exception, a freebie. This ability was moved to the acrobatics skill - stunt - and the ability was opened up a little in scope for juicy swashbuckling action.

There are a lot of subtle changes that I missed on my first read through and knowing the ins-and-outs of 3e hindered me.

 

[lutecius]

If you're referring to me, please check my sig.

I have never played 4E. Please bear that in mind before assuming that I'm some 4E fanboy.

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

I don't see how not being able to do something more than once per encounter, no matter what, is empowering, "narratively" or otherwise.
Gamist? Artificial? sure. But the abillity to "decide when the opportunity arises" once per encounter is certainly not more empowering than at will attacks in previous edititions. In the end, the dice still decide whether a power works.

And even if you consider the "miss effects" as narrative control, I'm of the mind that dms should control the world and players their characters. It makes things clearer and immersion easier.

I wouldn't call it "empowerment", I'd call it "control." Basically the ordinary order of operations is inverted -- rather than narrative pre-conditions allowing a maneuver to occur, the maneuver itself creates its own narrative pre-conditions. In terms of who has a hand in how the narrative actively plays out, 4E powers tilt control toward the players -- not because of any particular notion that players can change narrative on a whim, but because their interfaces to the world have narrative-changing abilities built into them.

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

The one that I find works best for me is:

"Whew, that was tiring, and I think overexerted/strained [specific muscle X]. I'm going to have to rest five minutes/six hours before I can do that again."

I think we've discussed this before but I find this "specific muscle strain" explanation terribly contrived.

 

[Maniac]

The main justification that I've seen is that the limited-use martial powers involve an element of chance and/or require circumstances to be just right in order to set up and pull off ... and thus, while your character may well be repeatedly attempting to pull off these actions "in the background" during any given encounter, it is only when you, as the player, consciously choose to use a given power that your character actually succeeds.

This explanation might work for you. Sadly it doesn't work for me.

I does not really work for me either.

In fact, the setup stuff acually sounds cooler to me. I don't know how you would balance it but I think I would like it if fighters had many situational "at-will" abilities that a clever player could setup.

The one that I find works best for me is:

"Whew, that was tiring, and I think overexerted/strained [specific muscle X]. I'm going to have to rest five minutes/six hours before I can do that again."

Sadly, this does not really work for me.


Thanks.

M.

 

[justanobody]

There is a huge difference between being railroaded by the GM, and playing in accordance with the rules of the game.

Yeah, there sure is. You can replace a bad DM for free, but replacing bad game design costs everyone money.

So when the rules of the game straightjacket you into something there is a bigger problem than when the DM does it.

If the powers system was more open to choice and the DM limited you to only one at-will, replace the DM.

If the system is hellbent on balance and adding an extra at-will or converting one encounter power to an at-will breaks the cohesion of the mechanics, then there is even more work that needs to be done.

Again this coincides with problems I have had with feats all along as well as the powers in the "requirements" for some of the crap. You must use a hammer for this power/feat.

Well if I want the sword swinger then that power really isn't something I can choose so the rules limit me arbitrarily without offering something at all.

That is where the powers system railroading the choices is worse than a DM.

Maybe it is just the flavor tied to closely to the mechanics of the powers for many of them. Maybe Crushing blow needs a counterpart at that level for other types of weapons, etc; that does not limit options.

But it should exist in the main set, and not require a splat book to correct the problem with the powers.

What about that dart chucker? Where is his power?

Repeated stabs with a dart for total 10[w] damage +STR modifier and shifts the target 1 square. Shift to illustrate moving away from being poked to death!

Call it standard action encounter power weapon martial. Then magic darts can add there little extra damage on top of the 10-20 the darts do.

Too overpowered for a fighter right?

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

 

[Bagpuss]

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

You aren't railroaded into using a hammer or axe for Crushing Blow, you can use it with any weapon.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You aren't railroaded into using a hammer or axe for Crushing Blow, you can use it with any weapon.

Well, let'S pretend this was different:

"Why am I railroaded into using this spell slot for arcane spells? I rather prepare a Cure Light Wounds spell!"

"Why am I railroaded into using Weapon Focus for just one weapon?"

"Why am I railroaded in having to use a hammer to get a nail into wood? Why can't I use a screw driver or a saw? I like saws!"

 

[Jack99]

First off, man, did you even read the rest of my post?

Secondly, I have indeed played 4e. You're not quite grasping what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are hardcoded measures against the fifteen minute work day as I saw it, which was based around players going and blowing the hell out of the first encounter they see with everything they have, and then sleeping to get it all back. 4e has hard-coded prevention systems around this - you have a much more structured power build up with dailies, encounters, and wills; a 3.5 wizard could have a similar structured system using long term, medium term, and short term spells (A goodly metamagic'd buff can last a couple encounters, summoning/calling outsiders and binding them can give you several days worth of use, or fireball, which can be used once). However, a 3.5 wizard could also just memorize a whole bunch of fireballs become a tactical - or rather, not so tactical - nuke in the first battle. For some people, losing that is a good thing. For others, it's not.

Honestly, did you read through my post, or jump to a conclusion? I'm not saying anything bad about 4e. If anything, my post there was praising it.

I did read through your post. But I see that I did indeed misunderstand a part of it, and for that, I apologize. I hope you understand why I would think you didn't play 4e.

Regarding the 15 minutes work day. I am one of those that think that there should be some limit as to how long characters can go on, so for me, the surge-limit is much better than the spell-limit we had in prior edition. Mostly because it is really hard to blow all your surges in one or two combats. Also, for what it is worth, I have seen players go volountarily into big encounters with no surges left, but yeah, they had to play extremely defensively. I know this is probably an exception, but boy it was fun and nerve-wracking for them.

Cheers

 

[Storminator]

I does not really work for me either.

In fact, the setup stuff acually sounds cooler to me. I don't know how you would balance it but I think I would like it if fighters had many situational "at-will" abilities that a clever player could setup.



Sadly, this does not really work for me.


Thanks.

M.

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

 

[Maniac]

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

That's crazy enough it just might work.
Thanks for the great tip.

M.

 

[Timeboxer]

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

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

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

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.