Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[Fifth Element]

The more times you hit someone in the head with a hammer, the more damage will be done each time, not less.

Okay, name an edition of D&D in which this happens. Seems to me that hammer does the same damage each time in most editions.

 

[justanobody]

Okay, name an edition of D&D in which this happens. Seems to me that hammer does the same damage each time in most editions.

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

3E. The first time he hits someone over the head, he uses his Power Critical feat (Masters of the Wild) to declare the hit an automatic critical threat. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use his Power Critical feat, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3E/3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the paladin uses Smite Evil to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Smite Evil, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the samurai uses Kiai Smite to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Kiai Smite, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the ravager uses Pain Touch to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Pain Touch, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

... is that the sort of thing?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All that you say makes sense. But I'm not sure that that is what Bagger245 had in mind - s/he seemed to be talking about keeping the flavour of powers constant but changing the mechanics, whereas all your examples depend upon varying the flavour of powers radically, so that a given power can stand in for many different ingame events.

Exactly - I was agreeing with you that 4E has you fit flavour to the mechanics, where in the past I've tended to do it the other way around.

It required a shift in my thinking, and if I hadn't played some Mutants and Masterminds this year, I don't know if I would have 'got it'. But now that I have, I'm liking it.

If I'd gone straight from 3.5 to 4E without playing an effects-based system in between, I might have found the idea of 'consistent mechanics, variable flavour' jarring.

-Hyp.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E. The first time he hits someone over the head, he uses his Power Critical feat (Masters of the Wild) to declare the hit an automatic critical threat. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use his Power Critical feat, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3E/3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the paladin uses Smite Evil to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Smite Evil, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the samurai uses Kiai Smite to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Kiai Smite, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

3.5. The first time he hits someone over the head, the ravager uses Pain Touch to deal extra damage. The second time he hits someone over the head, he can't use Pain Touch, because it only works 1/day and he's run out of superpowers.

... is that the sort of thing?

-Hyp.

You've read to much character optimization threads.

I might add - power attacking or sneak attacking flat-footed foes - you most likely won't get this chance again...

Of course, there is a small flaw in the initial post - it assumes people use their encounter or daily powers in the first round. But that's not always a good idea, many powers benefit more from a good setup, meaning you deal really awesome damage at a later time when you've moved the party and maneuvered the enemy in a good position. And then even an At-Will power might turn out to be the most damage dealing action (at least for Strikers and Controllers...) in that encounter...

 

[Thasmodious]

Exactly - I was agreeing with you that 4E has you fit flavour to the mechanics, where in the past I've tended to do it the other way around.

It required a shift in my thinking, and if I hadn't played some Mutants and Masterminds this year, I don't know if I would have 'got it'. But now that I have, I'm liking it.

If I'd gone straight from 3.5 to 4E without playing an effects-based system in between, I might have found the idea of 'consistent mechanics, variable flavour' jarring.

That's interesting. It does seem this particular shift is what's giving some such consternation.

I've always played D&D with a heavy dose of flavoring the mechanics, just the way I roll, I guess. About any caster I've ever made, I've devoted time to figuring out the look and 'themes' of his spellcasting style and always done things like flavoring magic missiles as actual arrows (for a conjurer), colored energy bolts (including rainbow for flamboyant chaos wizard), rays, completely invisible force (stealthy wizard/rogue), etc.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

Well, in 4e, I can make the hammer do more damage each time, if I choose my powers carefully and the fight lasts fewer rounds than I have powers.

 

[Fifth Element]

Name any edition other than 4th, where you hit someone over the head with a hammer one time, and then each later time you do LESS damage....just because you ran out of super-powers.

Why would I do that? You asserted that the hammer should do more damage each time it hits the foe, and that 4E is faulty because this does not happen. As usual, my "fanboi defence" of 4E is: yeah, but that's just like the older editions.

And why the assumption that the bigger-damage power gets used first? In 4E you can just as easily increase the damage with each subsequent hit, by using a power that causes more damage.

 

[Imp]

Let's say there we have a rogue with a +1 rapier, facing an orc.

The player alternatively says "I stab him with my rapier!" or "I kick him in the groin!"

In 3.5, I would have him make an attack roll with a +1 enhancement bonus, dealing 1d6+1 (+ Str) lethal damage for the rapier, or an attack roll with no enhancement bonus, dealing 1d3 (+ Str) non-lethal damage (and provoking an AoO) for the kick.

In 4E, I'll assume that the rapier is the Accessory for the power he's using (Sly Flourish, say), and I'll include the rapier's proficiency bonus and enhancement bonus in the attack roll, and he'll use d8 for [W]... for either the stab or the kick. The cinematic description is flavour; the mechanics of the power are the same either way....So the mechanics of "I kick him in the groin!" change, depending on whether or not he is holding a rapier. I would never have run 3E that way. But if I ran a 3E game today... I'd now consider doing it like that.

I actually narrate stuff like that in 3e fights and I did before I heard of 4e... now, usually, only in person v. person fights where they were just chopping down the first half of the other guy's hit points – a telling blow or a finishing blow would be with the business end of the weapon. Also if it mattered somehow, like a monster resistant to weapon types, I'd make sure there wasn't a clash there, etc. etc.

A wrinkle to all that which hasn't been discussed is that when you treat 4e powers as an effect that can be described on the fly... well, it's generally accepted that 4e powers allow for a great deal of character customization, but when you make the descriptions of the (esp. martial) powers nebulous like that, they don't define the character as well – they're more like playing cards you deploy to abstractly affect the battle.

I mean, if you describe what's written as a shield-bash effect as, depending on the circumstance, a kick to the belly, pulling the rug out from under the foe, intimidating him with a shout, chucking a wine bottle at him, and so on, that's all very vivid, but it does mean that the power kind of stops describing a fighter that's really good with a shield.

I don't know how big of a deal that is, really. But because I came into reading the 4e PHB with that attitude, the powers section of the book read more like part of the combat system than part of the character customization system. (except for some of the casters)

 

[Andor]

Ok, if I understand the current back and forth it boils down to the fact that in 4e you can produce mundanely effects previously achievable only by magic, and that to explain these effects without magic is awkward to 'requires retconning.'

EG: Bob the fighter is in melee with an Orc. He has taken a few minor hits but then the Orc uses his Big Power and crits with it. Bob take 39 points of damage dropping him from 'not even bloodied' to 'down and dying'. The GM describes this as a mighty axe blow that cleaves into Bobs chest and cuts to the breast bone sending bits of lung flying. A round goes by, Bob fails his stabilization roll dropping a step closer to death. The GM describes his breath coming up in bubbles of blood. The warlord uses inspiring word "On your feet Bob, it's only a fleshwound." Bob is suddenly at 1/4 HP and functional.

How is this explained? The simplest way for the GM is to say it was never as bad as it looked, the blood and bits of lung were really the juice box and baloney sandwich Bob had packed for lunch, etc. Without that Retcon it seems supernatural.

So alternatively must the GM leave all wounds and blows undescribed until after the fight is done and we know if they were final, healed magially, or healed by a pep talk? 'Schrodinger's wounds' don't sound that appealing either.

Is that the crux of the arguement?