Discussion of DMG page 42

[mach1.9pants]

Oh, one other thing. The official errata drops the DC values *significantly* (possibly too much). For example, the level 1-3rd DCs for Easy/Moderate/Hard are now 5/10/15. And both footnotes to increase DCs for skill checks and with the use of weapons have been eliminated. Whether this decreases DCs too much has been a significant topic of debate.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf

I certainly have kept the +5 for skill checks etc but not skill challenges, otherwise my PC's would be an almost auto succeed on most things.

 

[arscott]

I actually think Tide of Iron is a better comparison (because it's not a ranged power...just like the stunt kicking the Bugbear isn't a ranged attack). Now as I look at it Tide of Iron is better than this stunt in every way...especially if the Fighter in question is using a high damage weapon, such as a Great Sword or Greataxe. With a greatsword, he gets the push (only anywhere he wants)...does 1d10+4(Str) and has a total +7 to hit...again a .5 point of damage vs. +15% increase in chance to hit.)

Imaro, the problem here is that you're assuming that the character in question has chosen Tide of Iron as one of his at-wills. To me, the great strength of the Improvised action system is that it allows the characters to do something that they cannot do with their powers--If their objective is to push the dude backwards into the fire, they should be first looking through their powers for something with a push or slide effect--and it's only if they don't have an appropriate power that they'll use bull rush or some other improvised power.

In other words, the strength of the classic chandelier swing is not that it takes out the mook under the chandelier--the hero could have done that with his sword. The strength of the chandelier swing is that it takes out the mook and gets the hero to the top of the staircase.

 

[Imaro]

First your need to decide if its a rogue or a fighter I pulled thunderwave into the discussion because I knew the number off the top of my head. Also the stunt could be dooable where the at will could not.
If the bugbear is out of normal movement the chandaler thing could still be viable when a normal move is not. So now it is still worth it and a damn sight better than charge and a basic.
Now if you want you can always come up with scenarios that trump the stunt. In fact normally you should because otherwise the powers have little or no value. The powers are good because they are reliable and not circumstantial, stunts are circumstantial. If you don't see value in them fair enough.
I'm off to the pub for a few pints.

I never said I didn't see value in stunts (improvised actions). You were the one who brought specific powers into the conversation (which wasn't a rogue power in the first place) but for the intents of this discussion specific powers really don't matter. What does matter is that if the PC's have a more reliable and broad way to do movement+damage or even just damage...how do you entice them to try something different, which is probably (though not necessarily always) harder to do.

Tide of Iron requires the Fighter to be using a shield, so using the damage output for Great weapons isn't really a valid comparison.

Ok, that's cool...I didn't really want to get into a debate about powers vs. improvised actions in exact terms... though I guess in the end, with my players, that is what it has been boiling down to.

Let me start out by saying that I don't see nearly enough of this sort of thing in my game. I'd like to see one of these 42 stunts at least once a round.

I also think the guidelines could be better, but page 42 is a good start.

I also also think that if the player can use the environment it should be better than a power, given the right circumstances.

I used to think a condition with no damage was fair, but now I think that you can deal damage and do a condition and it's fine. Some effects (like Stun, Blinded, Unconcious) should be handled with care and maybe shouldn't deal damage as well. I think it would have been better if they had dealt with conditions on page 42.

Here are some simple examples:

"I bash him with the butt of my blade. I want to stun him."
"Improvised Weapon vs. Fort, Hit = 1[W] + Str and he's Dazed (save ends)."

"I cut the rope holding up the chandelier and drop it on him. I want to pin him under it."
"Dex + 2 vs. Ref, Hit = Medium Limited Damage (2d10+3) and he's Prone and Restrained until the end of your next turn."

"I swing on the chandelier and kick him into the fire. I want to push him."
"Acrobatics check for CA, failure you fall prone. Str/Dex vs. Fort, Hit = Low Normal Damage (1d6) + Dex/Str and Push 1. The fire deals 1d10 damage to anyone that enters that square or starts their turn there."

"I pick up the table and pin him to the wall with it."
"Str +2 vs. Fort, Hit = Medium Normal Damage and he's Grabbed."

Looking at your examples, I would be wary of the stunning one...it seems easily repeatable and easily abused (how would you stop that from happening?). The other ones I really like, and I think you've struck a pretty good balance as far as designing them...what I'm wondering is how do you get your PC's to disregard the powers for a moment and improvise something.

I was thinking some more, and I was pondering on the fact that maybe PC's having all the math spelled out for their powers, yet essentially being in the dark about improvised actions, could be th cause of some of the reluctance to try different things.

Imaro, the problem here is that you're assuming that the character in question has chosen Tide of Iron as one of his at-wills. To me, the great strength of the Improvised action system is that it allows the characters to do something that they cannot do with their powers--If their objective is to push the dude backwards into the fire, they should be first looking through their powers for something with a push or slide effect--and it's only if they don't have an appropriate power that they'll use bull rush or some other improvised power.

In other words, the strength of the classic chandelier swing is not that it takes out the mook under the chandelier--the hero could have done that with his sword. The strength of the chandelier swing is that it takes out the mook and gets the hero to the top of the staircase.

Perhaps then the payoff for improvised actions should be slightly larger than using a power...since most of the time there will be more inherent risk. D you agree with that?

Side Note: One thing I think would have been really beneficial for 4e to steal from Exalted is the stunt rules, where a cool description garners you a bonus of +1 to +3 on your action...depending on how well the description is given. I think this not only gives PC's incentive to think outside the box, but also gives them a boost to offset some of the difficulty in improvised actions. I also tin it's telling that Exalted, where you have many more charms than you ever will in D&D, still implemented this rule. I think these are the type of things you have to implement in striving for good game design when it comes to a system where you have codified "powers" for your character. Hopefully in the future we'll see the D&D designers address this perhaps in an article or something.

 

[Rel]

In other words, the strength of the classic chandelier swing is not that it takes out the mook under the chandelier--the hero could have done that with his sword. The strength of the chandelier swing is that it takes out the mook and gets the hero to the top of the staircase.

This is what I focus on. The stunts let you do things that your powers cannot do. The Fighter doesn't have a lot of area effect attacks. But if he pushes over the pot of boiling soup onto the group of Goblins then he gets to do that very thing. The Wizard doesn't tend to do high amount of damage to a single target. But if he spots a stalactite hanging right over the BBEG and uses his Magic Missile to break it off and drop it on him, he can do more damage than the MM itself would have done.

One other thing that I've taught myself to keep in mind: A lot of players like doing cool stuff just because it's cool. I'm a fairly Tactical minded player so I tend to weigh the cost/benefit of stuff like this more carefully. But some of the guys I play with aren't like me at all. They don't care if they could have done more damage by simply casting Fireball. They just want to roll the giant gong down the steps of the temple into that pile of Gnolls!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The point I have been trying to make, without any success apparently, is that circumstances may something allow the pc to do something outside the powers. To take the original example of the rogue swinging from the chandelier, if he is jumping from a gallery then his acutal movement could exceed what would normally be allowed in a round and he also gets to attack.
Basically if you think of something cool that would happen in a movie, I, as DM will let you break the rules a little.

 

[LostSoul]

Looking at your examples, I would be wary of the stunning one...it seems easily repeatable and easily abused (how would you stop that from happening?).

It might be a big deal vs. Elite or Solo creatures. Regular monsters it should be just fine. I might give Elites +2 to Def vs. this attack and Solos +5. (I'd tell the player first, of course).

The other ones I really like, and I think you've struck a pretty good balance as far as designing them...what I'm wondering is how do you get your PC's to disregard the powers for a moment and improvise something.

I'm not sure! 4e seems able to handle this sort of thing, but it doesn't make it obvious.

I am going to try two different things:

1. I will try to make more aggressive use of the environment myself, as DM. Maybe the players can follow suit.

2. I'll put a card or something on the table that says "The first person to use the environment in a cool way gets Quest XP." After that person does something, I'll put the card back down.

 

[Rel]

what I'm wondering is how do you get your PC's to disregard the powers for a moment and improvise something.

Just to touch on this for a moment, I have heard many GM's express that the players can tend to "bury their nose in the power cards" and this makes the actions taken in combat repetitive (see also: 30 different threads about "grind"). This is kind of the "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" situation. I could imagine it becoming an issue with my group. I'm going to try to use the "bury their nose in the cards" to my advantage.

Two cards that I'm going to make sure are included in the set the players use are:

Use A Skill - I haven't decided yet but I'm considering putting the page 42 ranges for DC and damage output on this card, with the clear understanding that I'll throw those out in a heartbeat if I think it should be adjudicated differntly.

Do Something Awesome - I've got a house rule that lets a player spend an Action Point AND a Healing Surge to "break the rules in a way that fits with your character". Basically this lets them use "powers" that fit the theme of their character without being absolutely bound by the normal set of powers they've got.

For example, if there is a big, burly Dragonborn Fighter and he wants to "punch this guy so hard that he breaks through the thin wall of this rickety tavern and lands on his butt in the street" then he need only spend the AP and Healing Surge and he is free to make the attempt. I'll tend to vary the AC/DC (HA!) that the PC must hit by how far above or below the general power level of their abilities this stunt is.

I'm hoping that cards like these will serve as a reminder that there is more they can do than just what their powers dictate.

 

[timbannock]

A rule that has come and gone in discussion on here is the Environmental Situational Combat Card (TM):

In any set-piece battle, the DM makes a card with some of the "situational environmental" maneuvers on them: i.e., swing from chandelier = Moderate Acrobatics, Medium damage. One of the PCs with a relevant skill (I tend to just use the Leader character who makes a Perception roll) rolls to see if they notice the environment's inherent advantages (usually Moderate DC). If they make the roll, hand them the card.

Now the PCs are armed with the knowledge, and they can weigh if it's tactically sound to use or not. Note that if you have a Rogue with a Power that slides a target, but that Rogue gets dropped during the fight, now the Fighter who didn't have a power that could slide a target might be able to use an environmental maneuver that does.

Furthermore, for RP purposes, I say to whoever gets the card: "You can relay this info to the other PCs and make them aware of the maneuvers...but you have to do so IN CHARACTER." This way, there's a roleplaying element added and it's not just a "Hey, Bill, I tell your character that you can make a Medium DC Acrobatics check to do Medium damage plus push the badguy."

There's obviously ways to tweak this -- like not handing out a card with the info, but relaying it in a different way -- and, if you do it by computer (you write down all those maneuvers in the Word Doc that your story is in), you can build up a database of such maneuvers over time. Then it's just copy/paste it into the next adventure/setting that uses a similar maneuver (i.e., every bar with a chandelier now has the Chandelier Swing maneuver applied to it).

It's pretty simple, regardless of how convoluted my post might be ;P

 

[ExploderWizard]

I believe that on-the-fly stunts are a great thing. Having all the risks and the math worked out ahead of time kinda turns them into just another ho-hum combat maneuver.

Cool stunts are cool because you DON'T know what the chances of success are. To me, these are moments of opportunity which are lost if you hesitate to figure out if the move would be tactically sound or not.

Having all the tactical options laid out neatly with rewards and risks pre-calculated gives a character the kind of battlefield omniscience that makes combats feel more like a boardgame than spontaneous role-playing action. Han Solo didn't want to know the odds before doing something desperate and clever.

Eyeball approximations work fine for me, heck a magic 8 ball type of response is perfect for risky maneuver inquiries. " Can I knock this guy through the window if I swing down from the balcony?" A good answer would be: " Its possible with bit of luck".

 

[Rel]

I believe that on-the-fly stunts are a great thing. Having all the risks and the math worked out ahead of time kinda turns them into just another ho-hum combat maneuver.

Cool stunts are cool because you DON'T know what the chances of success are. To me, these are moments of opportunity which are lost if you hesitate to figure out if the move would be tactically sound or not.

Having all the tactical options laid out neatly with rewards and risks pre-calculated gives a character the kind of battlefield omniscience that makes combats feel more like a boardgame than spontaneous role-playing action. Han Solo didn't want to know the odds before doing something desperate and clever.

Eyeball approximations work fine for me, heck a magic 8 ball type of response is perfect for risky maneuver inquiries. " Can I knock this guy through the window if I swing down from the balcony?" A good answer would be: " Its possible with bit of luck".

I think you make some good points here so I'm going to NOT put the p42 info on my "Use a Skill" cards so it's a bit less codified.