Encounter Powers as Encounter Slots

[Aegir]

When it comes down to it, its not a huge leap to simply handle encounter and daily powers/slots like the vancian magic system: if you have the power you can choose to prepare it as many times as you want, assuming you have the slots for it.

As has been said, it will likely raise the PC power level - tho' only slightly I'd imagine - and it would potentially increase the repetitiveness of encounters, but I don't see it being glaringly game-breaking.

I've a player I often DM for who highly dislikes the 4E system mainly because of the at-will powers of spellcasters, and I've considered allowing him to swap those out for extra encounter/daily powers. He tends to be an old-school style caster player (only using spells when there is a genuine need, simply standing around and letting the fighters mop up otherwise) and doesn't much care for the idea of a caster having something to do every round. The situation isn't exactly the same (in this case I suspect dropping at-wills would make a PC weaker overall, but like 3E it would depend on how long you go between rests), but close enough.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

There's also the problem that a character's known encounter powers are not all of the same level, so presumably aren't equivalent in effect. Basically, in the scenario posited by the OP, the players are most likely to use their highest level power three times.

That said, I'm actually considering some variant on this approach as well. I'm going to play the RAW for a while to get a feel for the game, but I expect that at some stage I'll present a house rule allowing something like this, for spellcasters at least.

At the moment the rationale for per-encounter spells sticks in my craw. I can totally buy into the narrativist explanation for martial powers (only once in an encounter do the stars align for an exploit to come off, and the fact that the player decides when that happens makes it narrativist). But for arcane and divine powers that doesn't really make much sense. To put it another way, a player in SWSE asked "If I've got enough juice left for Force Lightning, why can't I Surge again?". The only answer I had is "because the rules say so". There was no plausible explanation I could think of.

 

[lutecius]

There's also the problem that a character's known encounter powers are not all of the same level, so presumably aren't equivalent in effect. Basically, in the scenario posited by the OP, the players are most likely to use their highest level power three times.

You beat me to it. As I understand it, past level 1, none of your powers are the same level.
Unless you deliberately choose one weaker than what your level allows, every new encounter power is a few levels higher than the previous.

For example at level 7 you normally have one encounter attack1, one attack3 and one attack7.
If you make them interchangeable, you potentially get three attacks7. So it's not just more versatile, it's actually more powerful and has a significant effect on game balance.

Someone please tell me if i got it wrong because i've also been toying with the idea of a point-based system to circumvent that daily and encounter nonsense but it’s like they made sure you couldn’t hack it.

That said, I'm actually considering some variant on this approach as well. I'm going to play the RAW for a while to get a feel for the game, but I expect that at some stage I'll present a house rule allowing something like this, for spellcasters at least.

At the moment the rational for per-encounter spells sticks in my craw. I can totally buy into the narrativist explanation for martial powers (only once in an encounter do the stars align for an exploit to come off, and the fact that the player decides when that happens makes it narrativist). But for arcane and divine powers that doesn't really make much sense. To put it another way, a player in SWSE asked "If I've got enough juice left for Force Lightning, why can't I Surge again?". The only answer I had is "because the rules say so". There was no plausible explanation I could think of.

Funny, because I can tolerate the idea of magic having its own quirky ways, but per encounter martial powers annoy me to no end.

 

[WhatGravitas]

There's also the problem that a character's known encounter powers are not all of the same level, so presumably aren't equivalent in effect. Basically, in the scenario posited by the OP, the players are most likely to use their highest level power three times.

Well, then only allow trading down, not trading up.

Because, if the player is ready to take the trade, it's probably worthwhile, right? Then, the lower-level power is as good as the higher-level power in that instance, hence it should work out fine.

Effectively, it would look like this:

Known encounter abilities: 1st, 3rd, 7th
Encounter slots: 1st or lower, 3rd or lower, 7th or lower

Cheers, LT.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

Now that this thread has been moved to house rules, I'll add that the mod I was considering was to allow the players to pick two encounter powers for every encounter slot they get as they level. At the beginning of each combat the players choose which of the two powers they will use for that combat.

The theory behind this approach is that it doesn't unbalance the game (much -- there is an element of being able to customize a suite of powers for a particular enemy), but it does in theory give some variety to players, rather than having the same set of encounter powers that they use in the same order, every single combat.

EDIT: I do like LT's trading-down notion (similar to using a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell in 3e), which could be incorporated as well.

 

[infax]

Now that this thread has been moved to house rules, I'll add that the mod I was considering was to allow the players to pick two encounter powers for every encounter slot they get as they level. At the beginning of each combat the players choose which of the two powers they will use for that combat.

The theory behind this approach is that it doesn't unbalance the game (much -- there is an element of being able to customize a suite of powers for a particular enemy), but it does in theory give some variety to players, rather than having the same set of encounter powers that they use in the same order, every single combat.

EDIT: I do like LT's trading-down notion (similar to using a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell in 3e), which could be incorporated as well.

Essentially, I was considering trading down as well. But I'm also considering giving PCs access to the full range of Powers. Selected, not just before battle, but on the spot at every use. Of course, that may lead to continuous use of the same ability, but that would indicate there is one ability that is, overall, better than any other (which shouldn't be the case if WotC succeeded at its intended purpose).

One of the situations I'm trying to avoid is a character who selected Disarm as his Attack1 Encounter exploit opening *every* battle with a disarm attempt. Worse yet, after opening the battle with a disarm attempt and disarming a Minion the character is completely unable to disarm the firesword-wielding elite that shows up a couple of rounds later.

That situation wouldn't be unacceptable, but I can foresee it happening several times and it can be somewhat disappointing for everyone at the table.


Thanks for the suggestions so far, anyway.

 

[Lizard]

Why not be allowed to pick the same encounter power twice, and then use it twice per encounter?

If your character wants to be a tripping machine, let him take Trip (or Glorious Leaping Mantis Hurls The Monkey, or whatever it's called in 4e these days), twice, instead of picking a second, different, encounter power.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

Why not be allowed to pick the same encounter power twice, and then use it twice per encounter?

If your character wants to be a tripping machine, let him take Trip (or Glorious Leaping Mantis Hurls The Monkey, or whatever it's called in 4e these days), twice, instead of picking a second, different, encounter power.

In lieu of a higher level power, you mean? I imagine if any player wants to do that, their DM will probably allow it.

One of the problems when looking at houseruling 4e, though, is that it's a bit of a house of cards when it comes to game balance. If you start giving players extra powers or more versatility in their choices, the whole thing falls apart. It's going to make it very hard to house rule. For infax's model, for example, some kind of Spell Point or "Energy Point" system to control how many uses of powers the players get might work, but I have no idea how you'd implement that, since power level and power effect don't scale in a linear fashion (ie. a level 30 power is not 30 times more effective than a level 1 power; and how does a daily power compare to an encounter power or a utility power).

 

[infax]

@John Snow: That's an interesting perspective. However, won't it be true that if the character has 3 encounter powers out of six options (let's say A, B and C out of A, B, C, D, E and F), in a given battle, the character will be forced to use A, then B and then C instead of spamming A for three rounds. On the other hand, if there are 6 combats before the character raises in level, he will go A, B, C every battle instead of A in the first, B and D in a second, C, C, E in another... well, you get the idea.

The restriction of one use per combat forces variety in *that* encounter, but guarantees repetition over a range of combats. And if no one has a push power in that open terrain near the firepit encounter, there won't be any "push the bad guy over the firepit" scenes - which could very well be the purpose of the encounter.

So, if I understand what most people stated so far in the thread, the purpose of the current 4e setup for powers is (A) to guarantee variety of maneuvers over the course of any given combat; and (B) to slightly tone down the effectiveness of players by preventing them from using again and again a potentially very effective power in a given setup.

Any more aspects that I may be overlooking?

(...)
One of the problems when looking at houseruling 4e, though, is that it's a bit of a house of cards when it comes to game balance. If you start giving players extra powers or more versatility in their choices, the whole thing falls apart.

Why would giving characters more versatility in their choices make the "whole thing fall apart"?

 

[TheSleepyKing]

Why would giving characters more versatility in their choices make the "whole thing fall apart"?

I think it’s because so much of the game is predicated on the assumption that players will only have one power of a given level and that power is fixed. Having a combat near the edge of a cliff, for example, is going to mean that the players are all going to pull out their best "push the enemy around" powers for that combat if they're given the choice. In a sense that's how it should be... but it also might end up making the combat much easier than it should have been. Some other powers might be abuseable in certain situations (see the Ranger vs Orcus thread, for example) and it's hard to judge in advance how well giving players a lot of options will play out.

I could be completely wrong on that score, of course, and I hope I am. I like the trading down notion, and the idea of giving the players options to choose which powers they’re going to use at either the beginning of combat or even on the fly, but I’m almost afraid to implement it because it’s very hard to judge how it will affect balance or how it could be abused by the players. It could be just a lack of familiarity with the system, but it seems to me that many house rules in 4e have repercussions across the system that are largely unknowable at this time.

In any case, if you're going to try out any of the notions in this thread, please come back and tell us how they turned out. It would be great to know!