Why I'm done with 4e

[Belphanior]

I'm not operating under a misconception... where does it tell you how or even give guidelines for fairly adjudicating any effect besides damage? Now it would be different if powers didn't have effects, but because they do some type of balance should be maintained as far as ease of action vs. effect garnered. I have seen many people post what they feel is the right way to measure the value of effects... but nothing on page 42 helps you with this.

When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?

I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?

Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.

 

[Pbartender]

Now it would be different if powers didn't have effects, but because they do some type of balance should be maintained as far as ease of action vs. effect garnered.

How so? The effects in powers don't change how easy or difficult it is to pull off that effect -- Any given rogue will have an equal chance of hitting with Dazing Strike (Level 1 Encounter) as they do with Stunning Strike (Level 13 Encounter) -- but it determines the level at which the power can be used and with what frequency.

In other words, the difficulty of the stunt shouldn't change based on the resulting effect of the stunt... Regardless of whether you are slowing, dazing or stunning your target, the relative DC to accomplish that should stay the same, just as it does for powers. Rather, the effect, much like damage, could (and perhaps should) be based on your character's level.

So, to use Piratecat's example... A character pulls down a tapestry on an enemy. A low level character might slow the enemy, a mid-level character might instead daze the enemy, a high level character might stun them instead.

 

[Imaro]

How so? The effects in powers don't change how easy or difficult it is to pull off that effect -- Any given rogue will have an equal chance of hitting with Dazing Strike (Level 1 Encounter) as they do with Stunning Strike (Level 13 Encounter) -- but it determines the level at which the power can be used and with what frequency.

In other words, the difficulty of the stunt shouldn't change based on the resulting effect of the stunt... Regardless of whether you are slowing, dazing or stunning your target, the relative DC to accomplish that should stay the same, just as it does for powers. Rather, the effect, much like damage, could (and perhaps should) be based on your character's level.

So, to use Piratecat's example... A character pulls down a tapestry on an enemy. A low level character might slow the enemy, a mid-level character might instead daze the enemy, a high level character might stun them instead.

Powers are regulated by level... so actually there are effects that a PC, using powers cannot do until he is powerful enough. IMO that's a pretty big balancing factor right there. If you're going to allow a PC to try anything (instead of as in your example, dictating what the stunt does mechanically and again why would I want the DM to decide what I'm doing when I have powers that I know how they work mechanically?)... then the only way to even this out is too make it harder, unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful... which leads us back to the question of... how do we judge these things?

Edit: As an example, should it be just as easy to push someone 1 square as it is to push them 5 squares?

 

[CleverNickName]

We tried 4E when it first came out...well, it would be more accurate to say that *I* tried it, and everyone else in my group just rolled their eyes and fiddled with their dice. Eventually I got frustrated and dropped the subject. (grumble grumble...)

So we played 3.5 for a little while, then we gradually started doing the Pathfinder alpha and beta tests. Now that PF is complete and in publication, we are gearing up to kick off our first all-Pathfinder campaign.

Rules, playability, and flavor aside...I think we are excited about Pathfinder mostly because of the playtesting. We have a real sense of ownership and pride in that product...it's a great feeling, seeing something in print and thinking to yourself, 'yeah, we gave feedback on that.' Pathfinder is something we helped create, not something that was imposed upon us.

But a lot of the magic is gone. Because of the playtest, we've seen it all. We've tried it all. Now that the "official" Pathfinder rules are in print, well, it feels like we are buying new copies of a book we've already read a dozen times. So I am really excited about Pathfinder, but I'm worried about its staying power.

Anyway. I'm rambling. I hope you find a game that fits your own particular style of game. There are loads of games to choose from, as others have said.

 

[Imaro]

When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?

I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?

Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.

Wait aminute, what does context have to do with it? 4e is a gamist system, this is running along the same lines as the "knocking prone an ochre jelly"... "but it shouldn't happen"..."just describe it however you want" argument. It should be based upon level, damage and effect gained (since any monsters with special resistances or factors would have them already in their stat block). There already seems to be a hiearchy (based upon damage + effect) built into the powers of a class, all one would really need is this formula.

 

[Remathilis]

When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?

I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?

Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.

The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).

In fact, using the stunting rules to create such effects, its probably a good idea to go for effects like blinding or stunning than straight damage.

I think that's what Imaro wants: A hierarchy of "effects" that stunting can do so that not everyone walks around with sand to toss in their foes eyes.

 

[Imaro]

The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).

In fact, using the stunting rules to create such effects, its probably a good idea to go for effects like blinding or stunning than straight damage.

I think that's what Imaro wants: A hierarchy of "effects" that stunting can do so that not everyone walks around with sand to toss in their foes eyes.

Yes or even a mix n match table where a Tier 1 effect (lowest) + high damage stunt at level 1 to 3 has difficulty... X

Edit: Yet whenever page 42 is brought up people act like all of this is already included on it and I just don't understand how to use it... or haven't really looked over it... or whatever. Now I can, as a good DM, ad-hoc the stuff I'm talking about... but then why should page 42 be praised as strong, flexible or robust for adjudicating stunting in 4e, when all it does (as far as stunting effects go) is produce different damage dice?

 

[mmadsen]

The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).

Exactly. Context, which in many cases should be very important, is streamlined away, arguably to reduce the complexity of the very explicit rules.

A less explicit rule-set might provide fewer clear-cut, detailed rules, but more places, say, for the DM to apply a +2/-2 modifier or to scale up or down effects.

 

[Belphanior]

Wait aminute, what does context have to do with it? 4e is a gamist system, this is running along the same lines as the "knocking prone an ochre jelly"... "but it shouldn't happen"..."just describe it however you want" argument.

If that were true, then the "DM's best friend" rule also wouldn't have a place in 4e. After all, that's also a rule that takes context and uses it in a game mechanical sense.

The fact that improvised damage is different depending on how dangerous it sounds and how often it can be done is another example of context mattering.

All of page 42 is positively drenched in context. I think people rather overestimate how gamist 4e is and paint a picture that's almost a one-dimensional caricature.


As a complete aside, I do apologize for saying you operated under a misconception. You just have different expectations of what a freeform stunting system should entail.

 

[Pbartender]

(instead of as in your example, dictating what the stunt does mechanically and again why would I want the DM to decide what I'm doing when I have powers that I know how they work mechanically?)...

Because sometimes you might might want want to do something that falls outside the scope of the guaranteed actions your power grant you.

then the only way to even this out is too make it harder, unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful... which leads us back to the question of... how do we judge these things?

Wait... There's lots of other ways to make allowances for the power of an effect: action type (standard, move, minor or free action), duration (end of target's next turn, end of attacker's next turn, save ends), area of the effect (single target, burst or blast), repeatablility (at-will, encounter, daily, once only), magnitude of effect (pushing 1 square or pushing 5 squares ), and so on.

We're not making new powers here. Nor should we be. We're using loose guidelines, along with our general knowledge of existing powers and actions, and our previous experiences as a DM to make an impromptu ruling for an action that probably won't happen ever again under the same circumstances.

Edit: As an example, should it be just as easy to push someone 1 square as it is to push them 5 squares?

Oddly enough, when I judge on stunts, Bull Rush and Charging are two of my baselines for what a character can generally do.

All that said, let go back to something else you mention...

...unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful...

I'm not sure how other DMs run stunts, but here's how it generally goes with me and my players:

The player lays what they want their character to do. Usually, this is a fairly non-rules abused description. To use an example this weekend, the party barbarian got himself stunned while fighting some ghouls. He's still in the front line getting chewed on pretty badly, so my wife, whose rogue is standing right behind him says, "I want to grab him by the collar and drag him back away from the ghouls."

With no real rules for this, but several powers as inspiration, I give her a few suggestions, "You can make an Easy Athletics check as a Move action to pull him back into your square and knock him prone, or you can make a Moderate Athletics check as a Minor action to do the same thing. You can also make a Difficult Athletics check to move half your speed while pulling him with you... If you burn a healing surge, you can turn that into a Moderate Athletics check, or move your full speed."

Once I've laid out the options, she gets to decide which option to take, or she can change her mind and do something else completely different.