D&D 4E 4E combat and powers: How to keep the baby and not the bathwater?

[Ratskinner]

For example, if you are willing to assume that a typical adventuring day would consist of 4 encounters of 5 rounds each, and that an AEDU character would use 4 encounter powers and 1 daily power over those 20 rounds, you could have a "encounter" power level effect trigger whenever the character makes an attack roll and gets a score of 16-19 and a "daily" power level effect trigger whenever he gets a natural 20.

Y'know I slept on this idea and it reminded me of something from FATE (some versions of it, anyway):

If your effort is higher than the number required,
you get shifts equal to the difference between your roll
and the number. You can spend shifts on special effects
enhancing your action, making it faster, better, hurting the
target more, discovering more about something, and so on.
For example, if your effort is 5 and the difficulty is Good (+3),
then you’ve succeeded with 2 shifts.

A similar thing in DnD would be comparing your attack roll to the AC needed to hit. Every "step" of AC that you hit, but didn't need would get you a "shift". You could spend these shifts on doing the tactical aspects beyond "I attack". (So if the target has AC 15 and you could have hit AC 18, you'd get three "shifts" to spend.) I would presume that Fighters and other melee types would have special/bonus/unique maneuvers to which non-fighters wouldn't have access. Monsters could have short lists of "specials" that they could buy with shifts (Swallowed Whole, Poisoned, Entagled, etc.)

Examples:
Bull Rush (3 shifts) - You push your opponent 5 ft. back. This only works on opponents who are one size category larger than you or smaller.
Disarm (5 shifts) - You knock your opponent's weapon from his grasp.
Greater Disarm (8 shifts) - You disarm your opponent. You may choose to take his weapon.
Sidestep (2 shifts) - You may shift 10 ft. without provoking an Opportunity Attack.

The DM would only need a short list of the generic ones, and those available for each monster/NPC. For that matter, a group might decide to only use the special maneuvers on the players' side, or for special monsters only. I suppose the impact and occurrence of the maneuvers could be (relatively) easily dialed down by adding one or two to the costs, or by just doubling the costs of the maneuvers. Feats or other tweaks could alter the costs for certain maneuvers.

The super-basic version would be "If the fighter's attack greatly exceeds the AC he needed to hit, he may add some extra movement or special effect to his attack."

 

[Mattachine]

Using the guidelines from page 42 to allow PCs to perform stunts and ad hoc powers is great and I do this a lot in 4e. I also use the "terrain powers" and stunts from the DMG2 to great effect. Adventures published after the Essentials line frequently offer examples and suggestions as well (VERY MUCH in the tradition of AD&D).

Using these guidelines, though, makes such special maneuvers good, but not as good as actually powers that do the same thing. The maneuver will do a little less damage, won't benefit from feats and class features, and might not benefit from magic weapons and items that improve attacks.

In other words, p.42 and the DMG2 provide a way to perform stunts and improvised actions that works side by side with the powers system. I am reminded of Mike Mearls baby, Iron Heroes. That system had a feat tree system to allow characters to perform amazing combat abilities, and also had a stunt system. You could accomplish just about anything with the stunt system, but it wouldn't be quite as good as a PC that had the relevant set of feats.

This doesn't have to be either defined abilities OR freeform stunts. They can nicely coexist.

 

[SteveC]

From this forum, WotC forum, and the gaming online community in general.

Okay, then. I think this is one of those situations where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't get that message from any of those places, and I certainly don't get that message from the game's rules ... so there we are. The thing is, I wouldn't criticize the game for what people say about how you have to play it in a forum.

Personally, I think D&D (and any RPG for that matter) is a lot better when the rules are used as a foundation rather than a limitation. The Power system is (in my opinion, of course) a fantastic foundation to build on.

 

[billd91]

Personally, I think D&D (and any RPG for that matter) is a lot better when the rules are used as a foundation rather than a limitation. The Power system is (in my opinion, of course) a fantastic foundation to build on.

I agree that any RPG works better when viewed as a foundation rather than a limitation. That's why I think page 42 has the potential to be the best idea 4e has to offer. But I see that as a counter point to the power system because it is specifically not within the power system structure and thus not limited like the powers are. It's a much better foundation to build on than the artificially more limited structure of the powers.

 

[Janaxstrus]

People needed a page in a book to tell them to allow something if it's cool?

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

 

[FireLance]

I agree that any RPG works better when viewed as a foundation rather than a limitation. That's why I think page 42 has the potential to be the best idea 4e has to offer. But I see that as a counter point to the power system because it is specifically not within the power system structure and thus not limited like the powers are. It's a much better foundation to build on than the artificially more limited structure of the powers.

This raises quite an interesting point, though: do you also see the pre-4e spell system as limited, and if not, why not?

 

[Hassassin]

People needed a page in a book to tell them to allow something if it's cool?

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

The books shouldn't assume the reader knows the basics of roleplaying.

 

[FireLance]

People needed a page in a book to tell them to allow something if it's cool?

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

Unfortunately, for every DM that actively works to make his PCs look like action heroes, there's probably another who believes that he should never give a PC an even break, wants to work out the real-world physics of any potential action, or feels that doing anything impressive should be hard.

 

[billd91]

This raises quite an interesting point, though: do you also see the pre-4e spell system as limited, and if not, why not?

Of course it was both limiting and somewhat limited. That's part of its job, to provide access to cosmic powers but in a measured and regulated way. But I would also argue that it was more flexible (and thus less limited) than the 4e powers because, for example, I could rearrange and double up on the spells I had prepped to a much greater degree.

 

[Mattachine]

In other words, p.42 and the DMG2 provide a way to perform stunts and improvised actions that works side by side with the powers system. I am reminded of Mike Mearls' baby, Iron Heroes. That system had a feat tree system to allow characters to perform amazing combat abilities, and also had a stunt system. You could accomplish just about anything with the stunt system, but it wouldn't be quite as good as a PC that had the relevant set of feats.

This doesn't have to be either defined abilities OR freeform stunts. They can nicely coexist.

*ahem*