Tightening the Connection between Fiction and Powers Mechanics

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Two of the recurring criticisms of 4e are that (1) the in-game fiction is only loosely tied to the mechanics and (2) all the classes are too similar because powers are insufficiently differentiated and the at-will/encounter/daily/utility power structure is shared by all of the initial classes. Although the post-Essentials design has shown how classes can be better differentiated, there is at least some merit to the idea that powers are too similar. One response is to return to a 3.x model of distinct spells and class abilities, but this would have the considerable cost of losing the consistent format and presentation that powers provide.

Half (the first) is not a 4e issue.

I recently read the Moonshae trilogy (the second one), printed c. 1993. In one scene in the second book, Robyn, the Druid Queen, turns into a killer whale and kills a lot of sahuagin-controlled sharks. Then she basically faints (still conscious, but essentially stunned).

She did heal afterward though.

I actually dug up a copy of the Player's Handbook, 2nd Edition, to see if that was accurate. IT WAS NOT! Except for the part about healing. I don't recall "and after your wild shape is concluded, you are stunned for 1 hour because spellcasters aren't allowed to have any sort of endurance in a novel".

I see the same issues in 3e fiction too (Knights of Myth Drannor, for instance; spellcasters get three spells per day, and the book takes place over two days, so a max of six spells cast; healing magic is also pathetic, and never used for in-combat emergency healing.) I suppose 4e fiction might be similar, I want to read that new Dark Sun book, but it won't be out for a few months.

I posit that 4e-style power mechanics can be more tightly tied to the in-game fiction and that powers can be better differentiated by adding back in some carefully chosen idiosyncrasies to the powers.

In some cases, well-chosen keywords could be added into the power descriptions. For example, the Disruptable keyword could be added to, for example, most arcane daily powers. Such powers would provoke opportunity attacks and a hit during the use of that power would cause it to fail.

Most arcane powers are already ranged or area attacks, so they provoke anyway. I vaguely recall those attacks automatically failing if you get hit, but I cannot for the life of me find where it says so in the PH1. Defensive powers, like Dimension Door, really shouldn't provoke, and they don't (they're not ranged or area attacks, they just make you teleport).

Some of the martial powers don't have good flavor that would show in a book. The rogue's Torturous Strike (twist the knife) and the fighter's Griffon Strike are great examples of ones that do. Both should be tried for all the time!

A Verbal keyword could require speaking out loud -- preventing use of the power if gagged or silenced and negating stealth (even if it's a utility power). Other powers could require free use of hands. Alternatively, available magic (or mundane) items could be relevant.

You could make that a requirement for all arcane powers (except, I suppose, illusion powers).

For example, psionic powers might be characterized by being neither disruptable nor requiring verbal actions, but a lead-lined helm might provide protection (at the cost of mobility/sensing?) against these powers?

Psionic powers should be as disruptable as magic. Also, wearing a lead-lined helm will not protect you from telekinesis, psionic disintegrate, having your innards teleported outside, etc. A tin foil hat could be a head slot item that 1/day gives you a substantial resist vs charm, fear, psychic, or what have you, possibly with a resist psychic property. (There are plenty of such items already, and "slot-less" items in Dark Sun 4e that do just that.)

The idea is to provide a better mechanical hook to the in-game fiction. Combined with a more standardized list of powers, players would have a better idea of how the rules work based on the in-game fiction in a way where fictional weakness are more exploitable. One of my favorite moments in 2e was when a 7th level PC thief was confronted by an 18th level NPC wizard who found the thief in his basement. A very (rules-loose) grappling contest followed, with the wizard being dispatched by being rolled onto his own Symbol of Death. I don't think all wizards should be easily made useless, but it would be nice if being gagged or grappled was a more serious restriction for an arcane caster than some other character.

Heh. That's funny. I don't know how grapple worked in 2e, but an 18th-level wizard has a better THAC0 than a 7th-level thief... I don't think a modern ruleset would let that slide. What 18th-level wizard doesn't have an anti-grapple strategy?

 

[LurkAway]

Certainly there's a lot of people who miss the dramatic gameplay swing of a spellcaster who can decimate everything in one big explosion, but then has to rely on crossbows and quarterstaffs otherwise. Not everyone does, of course, but I think it's a worthy goal to try to add some of that back.

There can be a mechanical (and corresponding fictional) toggle. That a spellcaster who goes 'nova' can decimate everything in one big explosion, possibly is dazed, loses a healing surge, etc. and then relies on crosbows, etc. because he's effectively burned out his mana for that encounter. Whereas the average spellcaster will play it safe and use at-wills as short controlled bursts of mana. If you don't like swingy powereful 3E-spells for game balance purposes, then don't use it, and fluff it as the spellcaster not willing to risk it or not even sure how to 'let go'.

 

[FireLance]

But, point 2 is flatly false. There's nothing about a common structure that makes classes too similar in function or in concept.

I am of the view that anyone who was able to differentiate a Conjurer from an Evoker in 3e ought to be able to distinguish a Fighter from a Wizard in 4e.

 

[Psikus]

[*] Martial Power: Martial Power doesn't have "daily" abilities. Martial powers are reliable, and they are consistent, but they lack the spike damage.

An interesting point that I found out the other day while rereading the Essentials books is that they actually went and did that, for those books! Sure, it's obvious that the martial E-classes have no daily attacks, but, more subtly, neither do they have any martial daily utilities. Hunters and scouts do have a bunch of daily utilities, but they are all primal. By contrast, the arcane, divine, and primal utilities are full of dailies - in some cases, like the warpriest, there are only daily utilities to begin with! That's a cool way to return to the old school feeling of mostly daily magic.

[*] Arcane Power: Arcane Power doesn't have "at-will" abilities. Arcane power is very significant, but less dependable, forcing arcane characters to use caution when expending their few spells.

Having played a couple of editions worth of crossbow-wielding wizards, I think that is a terrible idea. Resource management is great, and I can see the merits of differentiating power sources, but having mechanics that encourage characters to sit idle some turns, or to use something as unflavorful as the wizards's crossbow is a terrible idea, in my opinion.

That said, what you are intending to do could still be achieved without killing the arcane at-will altogether. You can evoke the same feeling by giving arcane characters weaker at-wills than their counterparts in other power sources, and compensating that with better encounters and dailies.

At any rate, whether you remove at-wills or just de-emphasize them, this poses a bit of a balancing problem: the relative importance of at-will attacks decreases greatly with level - in ~5 turn combats, a level 1 PC will typically use 3-4 at-wills, whereas a level 30 one has so many encounters and dailies that he may use no at-wills at all more often than not. Thus, if you are not careful, you could end up with arcane classes that are unusually weak at the first levels, and stronger than average at epic (now, that sounds familiar!).

 

[I'm A Banana]

There can be a mechanical (and corresponding fictional) toggle. That a spellcaster who goes 'nova' can decimate everything in one big explosion, possibly is dazed, loses a healing surge, etc. and then relies on crosbows, etc. because he's effectively burned out his mana for that encounter. Whereas the average spellcaster will play it safe and use at-wills as short controlled bursts of mana. If you don't like swingy powereful 3E-spells for game balance purposes, then don't use it, and fluff it as the spellcaster not willing to risk it or not even sure how to 'let go'.

I agree that there should be a way for someone who uses a given power source to basically counteract the mechanics of that power source, whether through Shadow Power (shadow power provides at-wills to the wizard who might be terrified of not being able to plink down casual damage continually), or through a customizing mechanic, such as feats (a Feat lets you recharge spells faster, but they are weaker -- encounters become at-wills, forex).

Swingy is chaotic, but chaotic is fun, and for a lot of folks, robbing the wizard of that swing robbed it of the fun of playing a wizard. I don't think that people should be FORCED to play a swingy wizard, but I do think you can get at the heart of the difference between Arcane and other power sources by making them big, limited effects, while other power sources are a little more reliable. An individual character then has ways (via feats or somesuch) to tailor the class to their own particular playstyle.

 

[The Human Target]

I am 100% about classes of the same power source sharing the same power lists, but to me that adds in more flavor and less complexity at the same time.

And I am down for some of this stuff (like say making spellcasters need a free hand and the ability to speak in order to cast.)

But to me that adds in only a teeny tiny bit of complexity for the sake of better balance between power sources.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Swingy is chaotic, but chaotic is fun, and for a lot of folks, robbing the wizard of that swing robbed it of the fun of playing a wizard. I don't think that people should be FORCED to play a swingy wizard, but I do think you can get at the heart of the difference between Arcane and other power sources by making them big, limited effects, while other power sources are a little more reliable. An individual character then has ways (via feats or somesuch) to tailor the class to their own particular playstyle.

This statement is a bit inconsistent. By changing the mechanics of the power source to be more chaotic and swingy, you are forcing people to play a swingier Wizard. If you just want to create a swingy Wizard that not everyone has to use, then that's a build.

There are many builds that massively change the mechanics of the base class, as well as powers that key off those builds and feats that require certain class features as prerequisites. So, it would be very easy to build a Wizard with no At-Wills, but that gets say a boost to certain encounter powers (or additional encounter power selections), and then create feats based on that class feature that will tweak the feature to allow the use of some At-Wills or create weakened versions of Encounter powers. There's no reason to change the whole system here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know about class imbalance (if they can get rid of martial dailies, they can probably get rid of arcane at-wills without affecting balance too much), but it is a concern that the psychology will be "go nova, then go home."

Clearly, you don't know about class imbalance. They did get rid of martial dailies in Essentials - and those classes weren't balanced with those classes that kept them. Dailies aren't as overwhelmingly potent in 4e as spells often were in the past, but they still provide some peak power and flexibility, and lacking that really makes a class pall on shorter (~<4 encounter) 'days.' (Conversely, having butch at-wills and encounters makes such a class overly effective relative to others on exceptionally grueling 'days' - not that waiting to be impressive until everyone else is exhausted and begging to rest is all that awesome).

Even Pathfinder gave arcane casters the equivalent of at-wills. A character that can run out of it's schtick is just sad.

Now, getting rid of dailies entirely is a viable option. Not sure why I mention that, but it could certainly work, as long as /no one/ has 'em.

Rather than get too concerned, however, I see that as an additional area to improve the game: ensuring that there is a heavy cost to "going home."

You can't go home again.

Really, this kind of thing /is/ about nostalgia. Even if you go out of your way to make a good, modern game more like the primitive one you have fond memories of playing, you won't get the same experience - some bitter-sweet nostalgia, at best.

Certainly there's a lot of people who miss the dramatic gameplay swing of a spellcaster who can decimate everything in one big explosion, but then has to rely on crossbows and quarterstaffs otherwise.

Everyone has enough of that swing, now, to be fun, but not so much as to be hosed when they're out of the big guns, or ruin the game for everyone else when they're firing them off.

Not everyone does, of course, but I think it's a worthy goal to try to add some of that back.

There are, indeed, different preference and play styles. The way you cater to divergent styles at the same table is to have game balance. Because balance lets everyone have their sort of fun without ruining everyone else's fun. So, to the extent that you could do so without harming game balance, yes, you should try to capture some of the swinginess of paleo-D&D spells. The extent to which you can do that without harming game balance, is to give all classes daily resources of comparable effectiveness in similar numbers. 4e has already gone as far as it should in that direction (to be clear, that direction is 'backwards'). Essentials has already gone too far.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They did get rid of martial dailies in Essentials - and those classes weren't balanced with those classes that kept them. Dailies aren't as overwhelmingly potent in 4e as spells often were in the past, but they still provide some peak power and flexibility, and lacking that really makes a class pall on shorter (~<4 encounter) 'days.' (Conversely, having butch at-wills and encounters makes such a class overly effective relative to others on exceptionally grueling 'days' - not that waiting to be impressive until everyone else is exhausted and begging to rest is all that awesome).

Respectfully, my in-game experience hasn't borne this out. The increase in power on the basic at-wills and encounters of these classes is noticeable each time they make an attack, in terms of attack bonus and damage. In mixed situations, classes with Dailies will excel when they use their dailies, and classes without dailies generally excel consistently, with momentary spikes in every encounter.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that the groups I've played in who have had these experience aren't particularly sensitive to balance problems, but no one ever had less fun to my knowledge because they couldn't nova with a daily.

 

[Minigiant]

Although I like the At will, Encounter, and Daily structure; I would not be opposed to the power source having more focus on one or another type of attack. For example Martial classes could have a "go all day" focus with many good atwills and encounters but more generic dailies that can be recharged somehow. Maybe sacrificing HS for some or stacking penalties for others.

Arcane classes could be more swingy and spikey with their daily focus but have a gimmick/restrictions that limits the use of their powerful atwills like penalties like disruption.

That you could have both reliable classes and swing classes at the same time while still differentiating the power sources.