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

[xechnao]

Can you expand on that, xechnao?

Sorry for the late response but I was too busy this week. I was just saying that I would like to rather see probabilities of effects than probabilistic quantifiers of hp damage. For example you could have a chance to gain a certain type of advantage under certain circumstances. Combine it with your risks too.

 

[lutecius]

Basically, you want a kind of system that allows you to do interesting stunts, but they happen not all the time. So you must create limitations. 4E limitation is "once per encounter", "once per day".

3E limitations were typically a strong innate drawback to each option:
- Provokes AoO
- You take a penalty to the roll
- A specific condition or sequence of actions is required (tactical feats)
- You no longer can use a non-light weapon (grapple)
- You lose your Dex Bonus (grapple, run)
- The attack can be countered and used against you (Disarm, Trip)
The Book of Iron Might introduces a lot more options in this regard, basically all based on mixing penalties and drawbacks to allow you varied options.*

This is more convoluted. Basically every time you consider your options, you have to check if any specific conditions allowing you an option apply, what penalties do apply, and if you do actually provoke (based on the option you consider and the scenario). The more options you actually have, the longer the decision making process will take.

4E approach works the other way around - you check if you have used this power recently, and then apply its rules. That's still a type of convoluted approach, but the "hard" decision making is done faster and the implementation is what takes time - you don't have to do all in one step, and if you consider multiple options, this can make a difference.

In both cases, you still have to add tactical considerations (3E: Should I really risk an AoO from the enemy Fighter to disarm him? 4E: Should I use a Close Burst 1 power if there are only two enemies adjacent to me?), which of course make things take longer. (But this is usually also an interesting part of the decision making process - figuring out if a course of action is a good idea, not if it's even possible)

Iron Heroes tried to abstract these by just having tokens […]

I am not saying that the 4E approach is the best approach possible. I am saying that every design will have to make tradeoffs. You gain in "usability", you lose in believability. You make things faster, you have less options. […]

There are no perfect solutions. You have, at some point, make "sacrifices" or set your priorities.

First I am not sure that 4e’s power system, with all its marks and positioning is any less convoluted or tedious than 3e. And afaik it’s still based on difficulty checks, conditions and modifiers. At best, the fact that every class and many powers use the same base mechanics might simplify things a little (or make them more repetitive, you choose)

Iron Heroes’ token system is convoluted.

But I was advocating a power point system, not 3e. So the limitations are… well, power points.
Same system for every class, easy to track, doesn’t require more conditions or modifiers than 4e, a lot easier to rationalize in game. Doesn’t sound convoluted to me.

The issue is not simplicity (for players that is), it’s balance. It is more important that designers get each power’s level (and PP cost) right and anticipate possible abuses because the same powers can be used multiple times.
So yes, that requires more playtesting and I’m sure some issues will arise after a while, like in any system, including 4e, and some powers will need some houseruling or errata-ing. Big whoop. At least neither playability nor immersion is sacrificed from the get-go. I certainly don’t buy that you have to drop the ball on either goal. An rpg should strive for both.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

First I am not sure that 4e’s power system, with all its marks and positioning is any less convoluted or tedious than 3e. And afaik it’s still based on difficulty checks, conditions and modifiers. At best, the fact that every class and many powers use the same base mechanics might simplify things a little (or make them more repetitive, you choose)

Iron Heroes’ token system is convoluted.

But I was advocating a power point system, not 3e. So the limitations are… well, power points.
Same system for every class, easy to track, doesn’t require more conditions or modifiers than 4e, a lot easier to rationalize in game. Doesn’t sound convoluted to me.

The issue is not simplicity (for players that is), it’s balance. It is more important that designers get each power’s level (and PP cost) right and anticipate possible abuses because the same powers can be used multiple times.
So yes, that requires more playtesting and I’m sure some issues will arise after a while, like in any system, including 4e, and some powers will need some houseruling or errata-ing. Big whoop. At least neither playability nor immersion is sacrificed from the get-go. I certainly don’t buy that you have to drop the ball on either goal. An rpg should strive for both.

Well, so far most point systems I know of (be it at character creation or fueling powers) seem to have big holes and obvious optimization options and plain overpowered options. So I don't believe you can really achieve a balanced system just with "clever powers", you need additional checks and bounds, resulting in a more convoluted system.

Aside from the fact that power point "computing" is still more involved then just spending a very limited number of slots.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Everyone hates the problem of the "out of spells" spellcaster...

Not everyone. I for one, like having to manage my resources. Do I fireball these goblins now, or save it for the next encounter. And sometimes figuring out how to win an encounter when you're out of spells and hanging on to 3 hit points is FUN. Not something I'd want to do every other encounter, but every once in a while it makes for edge of the seat, memorable gaming.

 

[lutecius]

Well, so far most point systems I know of (be it at character creation or fueling powers) seem to have big holes and obvious optimization options and plain overpowered options. So I don't believe you can really achieve a balanced system just with "clever powers", you need additional checks and bounds, resulting in a more convoluted system.

So far, most game systems I know of seem to have big holes and obvious optimization options and plain overpowered options. Over time, I'm sure such issues will arise with 4e too.

I don't think powers need more checks and bounds in a power point system than in 4e (level, positioning, roll, modifiers...) The only difference is that broken powers can be used more often in a pp system, which is more unbalancing, but it's not what makes them broken in the first place.
Like I said, the trick is to get the existing limitations right (more playtesting) Adding new parameters would only make balancing trickier.

Also, 3e sorcerers had the same spells as wizards. Being better at spamming potentially broken spells didn't exactly make them overpowered.

Aside from the fact that power point "computing" is still more involved then just spending a very limited number of slots.

Maybe, but I don't find tracking hps that "involved" so I think I could live with that level of complexity