Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4526380" data-attributes="member: 12377">Abstract Stunts vs DM's Best FriendThis system overlaps with the DM's discretionary power to hand out bonuses and penalties whenever he feels like it.  Here are my thoughts on when to just give out free bonuses and when to use this system (or one like it).  I'd love to hear everybody else's thoughts on the matter since different game play styles approach the "DM's Discretion" issue differently.When to Apply Free Bonuses (DM's Best Friend)1.  It makes sense, and the situation is not covered by the rules:  The rules don't cover every situation and one of the easiest solutions is, as the DMG points out, to just apply +2/-2 modifiers as needed.  Example:  A goblin has somehow been drenched in lamp oil, and the wizard casts burning hands... it makes sense that the burning hands is more effective against the oil-soaked, and there's nothing really in the rules explicitly forbidding or allowing bonuses or governing the interaction between fire and oil.  So it's up to the DM to say, "Sure, +5 damage," or "Sure, ongoing 2 damage (save ends)," or whatever.2.  It's already costing the player something:  A player who spends a few actions or places themselves at risk in order to do something effective should be rewarded for their efforts with a minor bonus.  This encourages players to do interesting stuff and adds verisimilitude to the game (the stunt rules themselves exist only to provide a balancing factor where none would otherwise exist).Example:  The fighter spends his standard action drenching the goblin with lamp oil...3.  It's just too undeniably awesome:  You know what I mean... sometimes a player declares their action and is met with cheers, laughter, and applause, because what they are attempting is just totally awesome.  Give them a free +2 (or more).  It will encourage them to do really fun stuff, and helps them to succeed (since such moves are often more entertaining when successful).  Example:  Lassoing the dragon and leaping onto his back!  Tossing the big boss's words back at him before delivering the killing blow!  Stuff like that -- the sort of fun and memorable moments that really good games are made of.  When everybody is "in the moment," simply giving out a free bonus really is the most balanced and most playable option.When to Use the Abstract Stunt System1.  It makes sense, but this situation is already covered by the rules and they don't mention anything like that:  The 4e rules are meant to work together well and be easy to use and be fairly balanced, so they "gloss over" a lot of minor interactions.  It's sometimes unclear whether an interaction is omitted because it's really not important enough to worry about, or because the DM is expected to resolve it using "DM's Best Friend."  In this case, you can use the stunt system as a sort of middle ground:  you allow the bonus, but with some control mechanisms built in.  Example:  A dragonborn wants to bull rush a gnome, and argues that because the dragonborn has so much more mass, he should get a bonus to push the gnome.  However, there are already rules for pushing and for size and one could argue that both characters' stature is already factored into their statistics as much as it needs to be.  So as a compromise, you can allow it as a stunt:  Gnome Punt:  "I drop-kick the annoying bugger!" - Part of a bull rush against a target smaller than you; Strength vs Strength; +2 squares of distance.  On a failure, you can't attempt the bull rush (since you would be pushing for 0 squares).2.  It seems like a repeatable tactic:  One problem with applying bonuses purely for things that "make sense" is that players will try to get that bonus all the time and it will bog the game down and/or imbalance things.  Plus, you have to keep track of which things get which bonuses.  Using stunts allows players to have their tricks, but places limits on how often they can use them.  Example:  The party rogue declares that they are going to carry 8 concealed daggers, so as to always get the +2 bonus for drawing a concealed weapon.  Plus they will have a bag of sand to throw in peoples' eyes so that they always get a +2 bonus to AC against melee attacks.  It's fine for the rogue to seek out these bonuses but if you allow them all the time it would get overpowered fast.  But using the abstract stunts forces the rogue to only use each trick once per encounter at most, and with a chance that it may backfire.3.  You want to say "Yes" to your players, but you're just not sure about the consequences of a decision:  Is it balanced?  Will it bog down the game?  Does it obsolete some power or feat?  Sometimes you just don't know.  The abstract stunt system imposes strict controls on those elements of game play and instead pushes the issue back onto the player:  What exactly are you trying to do, and how cool is it?  So if a player is begging for bonuses, instead of disallowing, you can say, "Sure, we'll resolve it as a stunt."  Example:  A player wants to use Acrobatics to backflip past her enemies and avoid OAs.   What if you allowed someone trained in Acrobatics to make a check and get a bonus against OAs, whenever they felt like?  You'd be seeing a lot more checks, and Acrobatics would be a considerably stronger skill.  But tumbling past enemies seems like a cool and sensible use of Acrobatics and is something your player wants to do...  So you compromise by making it a stunt, putting the decision of whether it's worth it back in the players' hands.The bottom line, is that a little +2 bonus here and there isn't going to break anything and won't over-complicate the game.  That's what DM's Best Friend is for -- unusual situations.  For things that seem like they might come up often enough to be game-changers ("wait, you mean I can push small creatures up to 3 squares?"), use the abstract stunt system. -- 77IM</blockquote>

Verification