D&D 4E 4E with less powers

[Engilbrand]

Have them give you an idea for a theme. Then, choose powers for them and don't let them know what they are. When they attack something, have them tell you what they do. Based on their description, choose the power that makes the most sense. Everything is still intact, but they don't need to worry about the powers.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems to me they just dislike picking attacks and moves off a list. Both have told me its *much* more limiting to them to have to pick off a list.

I pointed out that in 3.5 and 1&2E most of the time they simply stated(I attack him with my sword) so why is it more limiting to say (I use blank ability to attack him with my sword) *Hahaha* but for some crazy reason they seem to look at it like they are forced to do preset moves(shrug).

Ask them this: is it ok that wizards (or clerics) have to pick spells off a pre-selected list? Why can't my wizard create any effect he can think of within his "level of power"? Why can't my wizard use any at-wills whenever he wants, magic missile one round, fire burst the next, ray of frost on the third, and cloud of daggers after that. Heck, why bother with those fancy names when most of the spells are "attack, damage + effect" anyway? Why not one spell:

Magical Base Attack (Wizard Attack Lvl 1)
At-Will # Arcane, Implement, See Below
Range: 10 Squares, OR Burst 1 [wizards choice]
Attack Int Vs. [wizards choice: Fort, Ref, Will]
Hit: 1d6+Int [Fire, Electricity, Cold, Thunder, Acid or Poison, wizards choice] and the target becomes [Prone, Slowed, Dazed, Immobilized, Blinded or Deafened, wizards choice]

That way players could create their own spell effects without "choosing them off a list".

 

[Garthanos]

Ask them this: is it ok that wizards (or clerics) have to pick spells off a pre-selected list? Why can't my wizard create any effect he can think of within his "level of power"? Why can't my wizard use any at-wills whenever he wants, magic missile one round, fire burst the next, ray of frost on the third, and cloud of daggers after that. Heck, why bother with those fancy names when most of the spells are "attack, damage + effect" anyway? Why not one spell:

Magical Base Attack (Wizard Attack Lvl 1)
At-Will # Arcane, Implement, See Below
Range: 10 Squares, OR Burst 1 [wizards choice]
Attack Int Vs. [wizards choice: Fort, Ref, Will]
Hit: 1d6+Int [Fire, Electricity, Cold, Thunder, Acid or Poison, wizards choice] and the target becomes [Prone, Slowed, Dazed, Immobilized, Blinded or Deafened, wizards choice]

That way players could create their own spell effects without "choosing them off a list".

I have been considering a post about permission to reflavor... I realized I have no difficulty reflavoring any of the martial effects ... but the effects for mages I have to at least open a door into different energy types (perhaps limited to if they know that type), but generally speaking it isnt that far from what you are talking about.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

One problem with the powers is they are mostly the same power with little tweaks.

All you need to do (I say 'all') is find the common elements to create base powers and then make them scale with level. A bit like the at-wills.

Then create occassional perks and bonuses to simulate the encounter/daily concept.

Another problem with the powers is plausibility. I'm not talking about possibility as every power in every RPG would fall down in this respect. The whole way powers have been mechanically worked throws implausibility in your face. So that needs to be addressed.

To be honest, I think if you were to manage all these things you'd have D&D 5E in your hands, and that's a bit much. (Not stopping me from trying, however.)

Looking at the posts in this thread, I think this is what a lot are trying to do as well.

EDIT: What I mean by powers being basically the same =

Ability Versus Defence.
Damage.
Extra Movement/Concealment.
Add conidition/On-going damage.

Conditions: Move them/Prevent Move/Slow movement, Heal, Daze/Prone/Knock out*.
On Going damage: Damage + Type

I don't think it would be that difficult (perhaps a lot of work, though) to strip it all out.

 

[Alex319]

One problem with the powers is they are mostly the same power with little tweaks.

All you need to do (I say 'all') is find the common elements to create base powers and then make them scale with level. A bit like the at-wills.

Then create occassional perks and bonuses to simulate the encounter/daily concept.

I'm pretty sure there have been attempts on this forum to basically "reverse-engineer" the powers and give each thing a power can have a "point value", and then build powers using that kind of point system. This seems very close to what you're looking for.

The whole way powers have been mechanically worked throws implausibility in your face. So that needs to be addressed.

What, specifically, is implausible about the powers? I hear this a lot, but don't really understand it. In the case of magic, for instance, I don't understand how you could say that one magic system is "less plausible" than another, because both of them are completely made up (they certainly don't correspond to anything in real life). Even in the case of things like martial powers - it seems to me like if you can accept that there's magic that works in the game but not in real life, then you should also be able to accept that fighting can work differently in the game than in real life.

 

[Mengu]

What, specifically, is implausible about the powers? I hear this a lot, but don't really understand it.

Maybe he is referring to verisimilitude/simulation issues like:

Halfling rogue can use trick strike to trip up a gelatinous cube and slide it 4 squares. Or use bait and switch to change places with the cube that's taking up the whole hallway.

It is easier to push a Gargantuan dragon, than to push a dwarf.

I've seen and heard a number of players/DM's turned off by such mechanics. I say if it bothers you, use the DM trump card and get on with it, but that's just me.

 

[Gargoyle]

It seems to me they just dislike picking attacks and moves off a list. Both have told me its *much* more limiting to them to have to pick off a list.

I pointed out that in 3.5 and 1&2E most of the time they simply stated(I attack him with my sword) so why is it more limiting to say (I use blank ability to attack him with my sword) *Hahaha* but for some crazy reason they seem to look at it like they are forced to do preset moves(shrug).

I guess I could just steal the 4E things I like and kick it back to 3.5 but to be honest I don't want to. I love the style and flare of 4E. Solos elites the way attacks are done..heck dange near everything.

I can see where they are coming from if I try real hard I just don't see why its a big deal.

It sounds like three things are bugging them, and because there are multiple concerns for them, it feels like a big deal to them, even if all three problems are small by themselves. I'm guessing they feel:

1. They dislike that there is not a simple class to play in 4e. In earlier editions, many players were happy with the fighter class because it didn't have a lot of options to analyze. Nowadays, the fighter is one of the most complex to play. There are no simple solutions to this, but if a player is feeling overwhelmed, I would suggest making the power choices for them, or at least helping a lot. My eight year old plays his rogue sometimes, and what we do is I read the flavor text of the powers to him and he picks which one he likes.

2. Some martial powers feel like magic, compared to how things are done in earlier editions. Fighters use Comeback Strike to heal themselves. A rogue uses Blinding Barrage to blind an opponent, etc. The way 4e healing is presented, and they way Blinding Barrage is described, these are clearly not magical abilities, but you don't see this stuff in earlier editions, so they're not used to it. Those are just 1st level dailies...the higher level stuff can seem more magical. I think this is an edition paradigm that will bother them less as they play 4e more.

3. They feel restricted because the at will powers are better than basic attacks, and so their narrative of their player's actions is restricted to their at will powers. This seems to be the most annoying thing to your players.

This reminds me of feats in 3.x games. What are now martial powers sometimes used to be feats, and the same discussions over whether feats restricted player characters' actions took place when 3rd edition was released.

For example, in earlier editions, if you wanted to try a powerful attack at the expense of accuracy, a DM might give you a penalty to hit and a bonus to damage. In 3rd edition, he'd probably say "But you don't have the Power Attack feat". So really there is some validity to this concern. They are afraid that the existence of all these powers will limit the things they can try to do. Even if they almost always "attack with my sword" they may still want the option to try swinging from a chandelier or jump on the ogre's back, or whatever, and they are worried they're losing that option.

Page 42 of the DMG, Actions the Rules Don't Cover, is the answer to this one. Explain to them that D&D 4th edition is still a role playing game and they can still try to do anything, even if there is already a power or feat for it that they don't have, and that there are rules to help you with that. As long as you follow the guidelines for how much damage they can deal with such actions and the DC's, etc, you should be ok. (Note there is some errata on that page, so you might want to check that out at Official D&D Updates .) The powers and feats just give them a better chance to do this stuff, they don't mean that such actions are impossible for characters without those powers and feats. As long as you make the "off-the-cuff" stuff harder than using the actual powers, and not do more damage than the guidelines allow, it should be fun.

Heck, you could even apply this to spells, not just to martial exploits. Don't know how to cast a fireball but facing a room full of troll minions? Make it a very difficult arcana skill check and see what happens. Failure might be disastrous, but at least it will be memorable.

If I'm out in left field and these aren't their concerns at all, then I don't know. Maybe they just need some time to get used to it...it's definitely different than earlier versions, and seeing it in action will help. I certainly don't recommend going back to 3.5 unless you as the DM also want to. An unhappy DM isn't going to run the best game. But if you all like 3.5 better, I'd consider it. I don't think 4e is for everyone.

 

[Alex319]

3. They feel restricted because the at will powers are better than basic attacks, and so their narrative of their player's actions is restricted to their at will powers. This seems to be the most annoying thing to your players.

I've heard this before. One suggestion I posted in a previous thread is to give everyone a generic "improved basic attack" at-will that is just like a regular basic attack (Str/Dex vs. AC, 1[W] + Str/Dex to damage, increases to 2[W]+stat at 21st level) except that it has +2 attack bonus. This makes this "improved basic attack" work just like a basic attack except that it's about as powerful as a regular at-will. If players feel like the "vanilla" basic attacks give them more room for creative description or improvisation than the powers, than they can use this "improved basic attack." This way characters can be creative with describing their basic attacks without feeling gimped because they are using something weaker than standard at-wills.

 

[Garthanos]

I think they should re-read the bottom of page 54 and especially the top of page 55 of the Players handbook then look at this post

Of Course it's Not a Magic Missle, pfah! - Wizards Community

Then the DM should help them visualize each of their characters at-wills multiple ways and do the same when his monsters attack.
The DM should also pay closer attention to page 42 of the DMG.

I think a flavor text wiki for D&D powers would be shear awesome. I have a page I call my Rose Magick page but 4e makes it obvious this isn't just about magick.

I think RAW covers it if people let themselves be inspired.

And a community effort could be able to produce enough inspiration to spark just about anyone's lagging imaginations ;-)

 

[Sadrik]

The flavor text crosses over into the mechanics quite a lot. The trickiest ones in my mind are the ones that use a melee weapon when you may want to have a ranged weapon character. The elf cleric archer.

I also really like Alex's idea with simply making basic attacks STR+2 or DEX+2 vs AC, basically making them weak at-will powers.