Mourn said:
They wouldn't. However, certain proposed "stunts," like the explicit Meat Shield ability, are on the level of powers, but without the expenditure of resources. If I can make an adjacent foe take the damage of an incoming attack on-the-fly, without expenditure on my part, that strikes me as a system replicating the same level of power but without the cost. In short, overpowered.
Why would they make it so that it doesn't cost anything? I've already said that I'm taking things like Book of Iron Might as my basis for comparison. In that system you give up one thing in order to get a chance at doing another. For example, you give up the ability to do damage to an opponent in order to attempt to cause a short-duration status effect. There has not been any suggestion on my part that this sort of thing should not come at cost. I don't see why you're reading it into my comments.
I agree on the first part (though I think a lot will be covered by skill use). The second part is where I disagree, since it basically comes down to "We'll allow everyone to replicate martial abilities, even if at a lower power level," which again tells players "Spellcasters are special, but martial characters are less special." That's bogus game design when you give one group solid niche protection (can't replicate spells with stunts) but not another, based on some kind of argument about "realism."
I never said that you couldn't create some kind of magic-y stunt system. Quite the opposite, in fact. The thing is, a stunt system is usually expected to replicate the sorts of things that Conan does, not the sorts of things that Gandalf does. That is the niche of a stunt system. Of course, you could just as easily make an arcane stunt system that anyone could use with the appropriate training. Call it Truenaming, or something...
Yet you don't make an argument about niche protection with regards to acrobatics? Shouldn't only rogues and rogue-like characters be allowed to do those things?
No, but I do get complaints from martial classes about being overshadowed by spellcaster classes, a complaint I've been hearing since the mid-1990s with second edition, and one that hadn't changed until talk of 4th edition.
And stunt systems have been used as ways to alleviate that. However, there's nothing stopping a wizard with the appropriate skills (which should be easier to get in 4E, from the sounds of it) from doing some chandelier-swinging himself.
My concern isn't allowing non-spellcasters to "cast spells." My concern is sticking the philosophy behind the design, which makes niche protection and class divisions important and distinct, which allowed "level-0" versions of martial maneuevers would undermine.
Niche protection doesn't need to be black and white. In fact, given what we're told about multiclassing, it's probably not going to be. I see nothing wrong with characters devoting resources (i.e. skills) to learning how to do a set of reasonably simple manoeuvres that mimic existing powers without actually threatening the utility of those powers. It's essentially the same as allowing people to find traps without Trapfinding in 3.x. Sure, it treads on the rogue's shtick, but how often is anyone going to devote the cross-class skill points required to get the Search and Disable Device skills they'll need, especially considering that there will be a hard ceiling on how good at it they can get without actually taking levels in a class that has those as class skills? They'll be half-decent, but won't be as good as if it were their primary job.
