Forked Thread: How would you have done 4e's Powers?

[Najo]

Forked from: Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

Powers

We’ve talked about a lot of subsystems, but no other defines 4th edition as much as the powers system. When people think 4th edition, they think powers. Some love them, some hate them, and now it’s time to take a look at the system and see how it ticks.

...

Conclusion
As you can tell by the article, the power system is one of the most disappointing to me so far in 4th edition. Not for its basic design, I think the concept of them is great. But they could have been so much…more, and unlike some of the issues I have with 4e, I don’t know how much can be corrected with splat books.

I have found Stalker0's articles all very good. This last one got me wondering how our EN world members would redo the 4e powers system based on what Stalker0 is pointing out in his article. How would you do the 4e power system to do it "right".

 

[Runestar]

I am wondering if there should be more variance in the way classes obtained powers. Currently, all classes access new powers using the same progression - an encounter power at 1st, 3rd, 7th etc, a daily at 1st, 5th, 9th and so on and so forth.

Consider the 3 martial adept classes in ToB. The swordsage had the most number of maneuvers and slots readied, but the crappiest means of refreshing them. The warblade had fewer maneuvers, but could recover them more readily. The crusader had arguably the best recovery technique, but the most goofy (read: unreliable) access to maneuvers.

Then we look at other 3e classes with essentially unlimited firepower. The warlock had invocations usable at will; the binder too had powers usable at-will and every 5 rounds.

What if different classes had different rates of accruing new powers?

 

[Minigiant]

They really should have tied power amounts to atrributes.

In my homegrown system that has something simialiar to power system.
Weapon based classes gained more abilities with higher INT, WIS, and CON.

You'd get extra basic abilities via INT due to more knowledge. Higher WIS grained more desperation(daily) abilities, and more CON let your do more special(encounter) moves. Because most weapon classes in my game already have high WIS or CON, they unleash their strong power all the time. Arcane classes were the opposite way. Their stat for basic attacks was also very important for accuracy whereas the desperation(daily) attacks stat was their dump stat. Wizards in my game could could do a million and one things all day but never shift the battle without heavy small scale tactics.

 

[justanobody]

I am wondering if there should be more variance in the way classes obtained powers. Currently, all classes access new powers using the same progression - an encounter power at 1st, 3rd, 7th etc, a daily at 1st, 5th, 9th and so on and so forth.

How about make it just where you get A power at level X.

Then make the powers the correct way where they are balance.

You get 1 utility power from 1-5 level. Why does it mater when you get that? Why should it matter when you get it exactly?

This not only forces the DM to create games a specific way because when attack powers come, but also players to play a specific way throughout the levels due to the powers they can get.

So why not just have a few groups of powers rather than level specific ones?

1-5 gets X powers

You can have a max of X dailies, X encounters, and X utilities at level 5.

Pick what you want up until then.

But you choose what level you pick them. You only get one utility, but you get to choose when to pick it.

You want the 2 dailies first, then take them first. It just means you have to make sure you are picking the right thing as a player, rather than the game telling you the "right way" to play it.

As a melee class I would rely less on powers than on actual attacks because it is what is always there. Meaning whatever little extra the at-wills offered over a basic attack to give some status effect or something that would give me an edge if available.

For caster classes this would still suck as they are limited on what they can do. So each class needs its own system for gaining powers, IMNSHO.

I never understood what the gripe was about XP even being different between classes, but now it is even more silly to have it be the same, but that is for something else, and probably been discussed to death.

There is nothing wrong with the classes gaining powers or abilities at different rates because they are.....different.

The more differences, including acquisition of powers, between the classes the better I say.

It make them more interesting than to have them just be different shaped cogs in the combat machine.

It would take a lot of working the powers and a few other things, but a different type of power structure that allowed better choices would be possible for 4th.

 

[xechnao]

Use only effect powers. Powers that do effects and get activated under certain effects.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I am wondering if there should be more variance in the way classes obtained powers. Currently, all classes access new powers using the same progression - an encounter power at 1st, 3rd, 7th etc, a daily at 1st, 5th, 9th and so on and so forth.

I actually like that - it keeps multiclassing "sane" - not necessarily 4E multiclassing, but the general idea. 3E has shown the problems that arise between different power systems once you get interaction between the classes in a single character.

Instead, I would've tried to put these distinctions into the powers themselves.

For example:

Arcane encounter powers trigger off the number of daily powers you have remaining (and as this number is very controlled in 4E, this it's actually possible to balance it), sort of like the Reserve Feats from Complete Mage.

Martial daily powers, however, would instead modify how their at-wills work for the rest of the encounter, making them essentially "limited at-wills".


And with utility powers... I would change the distinction between attack and utility powers - into a separation of attack (well, obviously attacks), defence (stuff like shield) and utility powers, meaning you can put more out of combat powers (like Astral Speech) into the utility category, as they have to compete less with the more combat-related utilities).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I would throw out the daily and encounter categories and then make everything at-will. Then I would rebuild the more powerful stuff with drawbacks for using it, the less I want the power used the bigger the drawback.

Also justinobody's "select when you want them" system.

 

[Jack99]

I like how 4e has toned down all the save-or-die/save-or-suck spells, but it annoys me that 99% of all spells do damage. Sure, the utility spells are great, but it would be more spells that cause effects instead of damage. I think that the 55% save-each-round mechanic of 4e would allow for some harsher effects, without ruining the game. I mean, in 3.x, if you were stunned for 1 round, you could easily be out 33% of the fight, and with a longer effect, you could be out of the whole combat. Now, with more and faster rounds, being out of a combat round or two would not be as detrimental to the game.

I have a little plan redoing all spells to reflect how I think things should be. It's just hard to find the time to even get started, so I am hoping some 3PP does it at some point. Should be interesting.

Cheers

 

[erf_beto]

And with utility powers... I would change the distinction between attack and utility powers - into a separation of attack (well, obviously attacks), defence (stuff like shield and utility powers, meaning you can put more out of combat powers (like Astral Speech into the utility category, as they have to compete less with the more combat-related utilities).

I agree. I like a lot of the utilities but they might be too situational or serve roleplaying purposes that are overshadowed by the other combat related powers - you have to pick "the best" ones, right? :\

 

[Remathilis]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ers-have-encounters-wizards-have-dailies.html

That was my suggestion.