Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Dalvyn]

Basically they are professional writers they should spend the time to make the flavor text of an ability fit its at will, per encounter, or per day usage.

That would be my favourite solution too. Describe the power in such a way that the rule restrictions are obvious/feel natural/do not need to be memorized. And, if you cannot do it, then change the rule.

That's actually another version of the rule/fluff problem: which one should come first and then be translated into the other? In previous editions, my gut feeling is that they wrote rules to formalize the fluff. One of the stated changes in 4E design was that it now went both ways: some nice rules were translated into fluff, and vice-versa. If the fluff is interesting but does not yield an interesting rule, the fluff is modified (this can be applied to several changes introduced in 4E I think). Similarly, if a rule is good/interesting but can't be translated into satisfying fluff, it should be reworked/removed in my opinion.

A monk using some mystical power called "chi" which is available in limited amount is good enough for me to accept the stunning blow power/integrate it in my "imaginary world".

so I just ignored it but in 4E these things are everywhere one can't just ignore them.

That is, actually, my worst fear about 4th edition: that the 4E system is so pervaded with rule elements that do not translate easily into my "imaginary world" that it becomes impossible to just house-rule them all. The previews make me think it might be the case ... but I guess I'll only know for sure in June though.

 

[Betote]

Having seen the rogue write-up, I can say I'm not a fan of w/e/d abilities. I know the gamist logic behind it, as it avoids players using the same optimal ability once and again, but I can't agree with the solution they came up with. I'd preferred if they'd resolved this just making the different abilities useful in different combat situations, so the tactic decision would be "What is the best move I can take now?", not "What is the best move I have still available?".

This, and the take on skills (I love the granularity of 3.X's skill system, and that was the main reason for me to not switch to True20) are my main argues against 4E as for now. My other grips (as the squared fireballs or the magic item limitations) are so easily houseruled they shouldn't become a real issue unless I find as many of them as to make me remember an awful lot of house rules, but the w/e/d abilities and the oversimplified skill system seem too much tightly tied to the rules to be houseruled away.

OTOH, I love the simplified maths. They make so easier to create NPCs on the fly.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think a pretty good analogue here is the 3.5 Monk and his Stunning Fist ability. Its a completely non-magical ability (works in anti-magic fields!) but he only can do it X/day. If you can accept that, whats the problem with Rogues and their per-encounter/per-day abilities?

Well, who says he did really accept that? (And then there is the fact Fighters who by chance pr bad luck happen to take the feat get only one use per 4 levels...)

If you want to find a in-gameworld logic for these powers, here's my take:
At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day is a shorthand description for the likelihood of a certain situation coming up and an appropriate maneuver working. An At Will power is something easily done as long as the base conditions are met. Once you learned the technique, you can repeat it often.
Per Encounter powers are a little more difficult. It's not just knowledge, it's good timing and some luck. Per Day is fiendishly difficult. Even if you trained a lot in it, you still need a lot of luck. It's really hard to get the coordination right, and find the right situation to use it.

The remaining thing to explain is why a character can have the "luck" required to use a per encounter or per day exactly when he wants to. In this case, we need to distinguish player and character. The character is just doing the best he can do. But the player has some control about his in-game luck in regards to the power. It's the player who decides to give his character the luck he needs.
This explanation does not yet rely on other in-game metaphysics besides luck. For arcane or divine spellcasting, it's probably less luck and more "achieving the right state of mind". This might also be the case for martial maneuvers.
(Remember: There is no "magic power source". Martial can also be "magic", it's just magic different from fireballs and prayers... A 5'8 tall human winning a fight against a 20' dragon or 12 Goblin warriors is anything but mundane...)

 

[AllisterH]

Why not simply use the explanation that Bo9S uses which Henry mentioned for Encounter powers?

Only thing left to explain then would be Daily Powers.

 

[Ahglock]

Well, it could work, except when you are too tired to do a shadow step, but not too tired to do <insert name of another, equally exausting per day power>
I'm considering the idea to do something like, you can attempt to use the same encounter/day power twice (or more), but every time you try you add a cumulative malus to the check, of course I had to see the rules as a whole to see if it is viable.

so positioning strike first time dex vs will
second (dex -X) vs will
third (dex - 2X) vs will
etc
so you can attempt it more than once but it get harder and harder.
(Maybe add some details like X could be greater for higher level powers.)
I would have less problems with this approach.

Well my personal preference for most martial characters would be for them to have X # of per day uses which they can pull from the entire per day list. Not I can perform one shadow step and one 1000 cuts of death.

 

[Ahglock]

Er, but as many people mention, they HATE the ki/anime/shonen/wuxia feel of the monk and even though I personally will describe it like that, I don't think WOTC should though.

I don't care if its Ki. Describe it as muscle strain in the PH2, just describe it in a way that I can but its a per encounter ability. Though I think if they had 2 unarmed combatant classes a mystic or monk, and a martial artist or pugilist they could describe one as Ki and one as muscle strain and there would be little complaint except form all the its too anime people. But since I'd like to run a Naruto campaign they can stuff it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well my personal preference for most martial characters would be for them to have X # of per day uses which they can pull from the entire per day list. Not I can perform one shadow step and one 1000 cuts of death.

I wonder if this might not actually be something they will do?

I mean, look at the Paladin Smites in a previous article. 3 Smites where described, but it actually implies they get more. If all Smites are per encounter power, and a 15th level Paladin knows, say, 5 Smites, this would mean he could his smites the whole combat (at least a combat that is probably a little short for 4E - 5 rounds long), never resorting to an at-will or "mundane" attack.

There must be something in there we haven't really seen yet. Or it really works this way, and then I wonder how that can be the intention and if it really works.

 

[Lizard]

While I agree with the problem of per encounter/per day powers needing some believable fluff text to justify them, I do not think the AW/PE/PD is especially confusing if you're already used to D&D levels of complexity. (I consider D&D mid-crunch; GURPS and HERO are high crunch, Amber is low crunch. WOD is about on par w/D&D, maybe a bit lower-crunch. Just so you know my definitions.)

3x has a lot of different times for abilities: spell slots, spell points, X per day, etc. Barbarian rage is per day, but lasts for X rounds, and then you're fatigued "for the current encounter". Some powers last for one attack; others for all the attacks you make in a round. I'll put my 3e grognard ranking against anyone, but there is a confusing mess of rules on a power-by-power basis, and while I do not think AW/PE/PD is the best solution, using one consistent set of rules for all powers is a good idea. (Kind of like how there are set ranges for spells in 3e -- touch,short, medium, long, as opposed to each spell having its own unique range to be learned, as in 1/2e.)

On your character sheet, you will write:At Will Powers, PE Powers, PD Powers. Check off the latter two as you use them. Really, no different than keeping track of which spells you cast. A Barbarian/Sorcerer (I played one) keeps track of spell slots and rages, for example, and it's not especially confusing.

 

[Lizard]

I mean, look at the Paladin Smites in a previous article. 3 Smites where described, but it actually implies they get more. If all Smites are per encounter power, and a 15th level Paladin knows, say, 5 Smites, this would mean he could his smites the whole combat (at least a combat that is probably a little short for 4E - 5 rounds long), never resorting to an at-will or "mundane" attack.

This assumes all his smites are useful. Also, I think that 'normal attack' *is* an at-will power; it's just one everyone gets. It keeps things consistent. There might well be 'universal' AW/PE/PD powers (like healing surges), and "Just whack the orc with my sword" is an "at will" power: (Attack vs AC, [W]+Str).

 

[Ahglock]

More than that -- in Book of Nine Swords, they explain it that when you use a maneuver, you wind up slightly out of position to try it again, or you've had to concentrate and focus your energies in doing it, and it takes a short while to get your focus back, to move back into position, or to get back in a position where it will work again. Add that to the "enemies saw you do it" maneuver, and it offers enough explanations why it won't work. After all, if you kidney punch someone in a fight, they likely won't be in position to just stand there and let you keep doing it over and over in the same place -- they're moving, ducking, weaving, etc. and that "blade twist" you just happened to be in the right place for at that time. Maybe the opportunity will come up again in a minute, but not right now.

Ultimately, ALL game mechanics have to be taken on "suspension of disbelief", just like most all movies or other entertainments. Why can't you hire a lawyer in monopoly to fight your arrest and going to jail? Why does rolling dice three times automatically spring you whether you succeed or not? Why couldn't Gandalf just call some of his eagle buddies and have Frodo drop the ring into Mount doom that same afternoon? Same idea -- you have to build justifications for why the "fun" route needs to be taken.

Sure, but the more bridges i have to build so the party doesn't take a detour into lame town the harder it is to DM a fun game and the worse the game is for me. I have no idea yet, how many bridges I will have to build in 4e.

And just as a note the Bo9S explanation wouldn't fly for anyone in my games. What I am off balance for the rest of the fight so I can't perform a blade twist, but I can perform a double back flip surprise?