Forked Thread: How would you have done 4e's Powers?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The idea of "powers" is a bit misleading. They really should be called "actions", and the concept of "actions" would include generic stuff like "skill actions" and "second wind." "Powers" (as 4E calls them) are just class-exclusive Actions.

If I were going to work with the 4E system of Powers/Actions, I would do a couple things:
1. Get rid of at-will Arcane and Divine actions. They just don't feel magical if you can do them at-will. The Paladin and Cleric in particular should have "martial" at-will actions, but the wizard too.

This has a certain appeal.

2. Re-write all the actions so that we don't need such precise knowledge of battlemat placement. I don't like the skirmish boardgame nature of 4E, and if the powers were rewritten to in this fashion we could go back to boardless gaming much more easily.

This, too. It's especially more attractive to beginning players that might shun investing in money for minis (not that they are required, graph paper and tokens still work, but...). I think it would be possible, I am less certain about the tactical depth. (Ultimately, Position is also just a - very complex - condition for each PC, and the board removes the difficulty in noting this down)

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

AFAIC, the main problem with the powers system is the fact that they're pre-packaged. The brilliant part, on the other hand, is that the designers did an excellent job working out tiers of increased damage and effects that are easy to copy and reverse-engineer. The mechanics should have stopped right there and allowed the players to roleplay combat as in previous editions with a token-like system to increase the to-hit bonus, damage, or collateral effects of a particular chosen action.

To be more specific, each character would have five level-dependent additional statistics. Let's call them "At-Will Output," "Encounter Efforts", "Encounter Output", "Daily Efforts" and "Daily Output". The "Efforts" indicate the number of tokens useable per encounter or day (total number of encounter/daily 'powers' basically) and the "Output" is a numerical value indicating the amount of damage or type of rider effects allowed on a given attack.

For instance, I am a fighter and I want to attack a foe's leg to slow him down. I have an At-Will Output of 1, Encounter of 3 and Daily of 5. At-Will 1 gives me no ability to hamper a target really. If I choose to expend an Encounter Effort, I can do 1[W] and slow until the end of the target's next turn. If I blow a Daily, I can do 2[W] and slow until end of next turn or 1[W] and slow until save.

Each non-spellcasting class has their own unique table of Output to effect/damage conversions. Spellcasting classes list spells by required Output to cast. I am currently writing a system that does exactly this, although it uses a 3-dice "Risk" sort of mechanic for conflict resolution (combat AND non-combat) and so it requires no table.

It might be possible to reverse-engineer this into 4E (more or less) such that you crush the at-will, encounter and daily powers into triads. You'd have, say, 4 powers at first level - each power has an at-will, encounter and daily variant. At most levels, you pick up a feat or another encounter or daily "token." Occasionally, you gain a new power or access to another set of better at-will/encounter/daily triads. I think perhaps this last option would have suited me better for 4E.

 

[lutecius]

another idea make the powers progressive and give power points.
1st level of a power does X worth of effect.
2nd level of power does 2X worth of effect.
~
6th level of power does 6X worth of effect.

Then just spend your power points available on whatever power you want at anytime with available points.

So you get like 7 power points at level 5. You spend them on a level 6 encounter power, and a level 1 daily.

Not a fully refined idea, but I think you might get what I am saying.

Or just let the powers, like magic items of the past, graduate with the PC level.


Why? I want to be able to use Crushing Blow more often, so why can you not specialize in a series of powers?

I’m a strong proponent of power points too, with a cost by level for each power.
Why? Because I was never a fan of vancian spell-casting and "vancian" sword-swinging offends me to the deepest depths of my soul. I know it has been debated to death before, so let’s just say it’s a problem for some of us that wasn’t mentioned in Stalker0’s thread.

Maybe I’d keep some per turn/encounter limit or include some side-effect mechanic to prevent players from burning all their points in a single fight and avoid the so called 15 minute adventuring day.

Benefits of a pp system:
- martial characters and spellcasters still use the same system but unlike the 4e system, it makes sense for both. Running out of powers actually simulates something (fatigue). No more convoluted "narrativist" justifications needed.
- a single power can be used several times. No more "oh, I still have enough juice to pull off my most kickass daily trick, but no way I could trip my opponent again in this fight"
- players are no longer penalized if they don’t always pick the most useful powers in all circumstances. Which allows for more varied powers and specific character concepts.

Drawbacks:
- Balance and abusable powers require extra attention. But that’s what designers and playtesters are paid for.
- possible spamming of the same attack. But a simple penalty each time a particular power is used against the same opponent would partly prevent that and still make sense "in game".
And again, this design would allow immunities and non-generic powers back into the game so different attacks would be appropriate depending on the circumstances.


On a side note, I would also weed out the ubiquitous "hit target for completely unrelated effect" powers.
If you don’t want clerics to waste a turn on healing, then give them healing as a free action.
Having to hit someone to heal or buff your allies is stupid, no matter how many sparkly light effects you put in the description.
Same for the warlock. How the f does offing people help you teleport?
As for the warlord… well, scrap the warlord. He's not worth the trouble.

Option 5: Introduce recharges for encounter and utility powers. Daily powers recharge on a 6, Encounter powers recharge on a 4,5,6, say. Do the same for monsters which have daily and encounter only powers.

Why? Because it is boring when you miss on half of your cool powers and you have to settle down to slogging your way through a fight with the at-wills.

Random recharges are not very elegant and require extra rolls but to me they’re still better than the 4e system as is. Making eladrin and eladrin PCs a bit more alike isn’t a bad idea either.

The True20 system (fatigue checks) would also work for me after a little cleanup and the kind of playtesting and balancing WotC can afford.

Sigh... All those missed opportunities...

 

[Grazzt]

BTW, one of Stalker0's original points which I disagree with is actually a disagreement with the 4e designers assertion that there was a problem with a "15 minute adventuring day". I've never seen it. Ever. I've never come across anyone that has seen it (and I'm sure if in any of the groups I've ever known that if a party *had* tried that, there would have been consequences which would have mitigated against trying it often). Low level casters could run out of spells, but once 5th-7th level was reached (and earlier if wands were found/made earlier) the casters never ran out of a combination of magic spells or wand-power. Just didn't happen.

Same here and agreed. We've been playing since 1981/82 and never saw the '15 min adventure day' either. Nor did any of the groups I knew either.

Me. I would'nt have done the powers system at all. I would've set it up more like the SW Saga system (talents and such). But- that's probably a topic for another thread entirely, so carry on...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I feel picky today:

Drawbacks:
- Balance and abusable powers require extra attention. But that’s what designers and playtesters are paid for.

Sure, they are. But such a design will have other drawbacks - like being more convoluted. There are always tradeoffs to make.

 

[lutecius]

I feel picky today:

Not sure what you mean but posting on CM definitely made you err... cheekier.

Sure, they are. But such a design will have other drawbacks - like being more convoluted.

How so?

 

[Fifth Element]

Of course, it's also vital to realize that many proposed changes that look good while discussing design won't be good when implemented.

Very good point. There are a lot of armchair game designers who just know they could design a better game than the professionals.

 

[Runestar]

How so?

I am guessing that sourcebooks could easily be 10+ times as thick as they are now, if every feature had to be worded extremely concisely so as to avoid possible alternative (mis)interpretations, include provisions on how it should/would interact with other abilities, as well as designer notes on just what their intent was, pre-emptive replies to anticipated queries and the like.

For instance, the rule on TWFing might include a clause like "Handedness is not defined in the game, so you need not declare whether you are to be right or left-handed ahead of time. You can freely designate which hand is your main/off-hand as and when you are wielding the respective weapons and executing the desired powers. The goal of TWFing is simply to provide a bonus for players wanting a benefit to fighting with 2 weapons, rather than a realistic simulation of real-life 2-weapon fighting. We find that it does not really matter from a mechanics POV just which your main/off hands are, so we find no need to enforce it."

 

[Plane Sailing]

Me. I would'nt have done the powers system at all. I would've set it up more like the SW Saga system (talents and such). But- that's probably a topic for another thread entirely, so carry on...

That was certainly my preferred "Option 1" from my original post. If only there was time...

 

[Intense_Interest]

If I were going to work with the 4E system of Powers/Actions, I would do a couple things:
1. Get rid of at-will Arcane and Divine actions. They just don't feel magical if you can do them at-will. The Paladin and Cleric in particular should have "martial" at-will actions, but the wizard too.
2. Re-write all the actions so that we don't need such precise knowledge of battlemat placement. I don't like the skirmish boardgame nature of 4E, and if the powers were rewritten to in this fashion we could go back to boardless gaming much more easily.

You wandered into two strong opinion's I've had about the 4e Power System and Combat as a whole:

1- What makes the ability to do something at-will "not-magic"? Is there a necessary intrinsic conception that Magic needs to be large, impressive, and non-utilitarian rather than be a flick-the-light-switch power? If so, shouldn't you also trash the idea of Encounter and Daily magic as well?

Follow me: The magic that we know in our culture is only the impossible feats of action that are only accomplished in very precise conditions- I'm talking stage magic- rabbits out of hats, escape from water-cages, and the like. Fireballs and Magic Missiles are not Magic, they are ranged artillery with an esoteric ammo supply. The utilitarian, "this is how it works and it always works like this" form of Spells written in a PHB is specifically not "magical"- as in unknowable, non-scientific, fantastic.

Therefore, the strongest, truest way to conceive Magic in a game system is to tie all systems to a slightly modified Ritual system- costly, time consuming, random and at the whims of a higher power (Gods, Demons, and the Rat-Bastard GM). For example, remove Magic Missile from at-will, as you say. Replace it with a low-cost ritual that allows you to shoot an amount of Energy bolts as a standard action equal to your roll.

2- Place-mat and Positioning that you demean is the primary method to create a true skill-testing game within combat. Without requiring the use of pattern-recognition and strategic planning, combat becomes a meta-game test of resource management and stat accumulation as you would see in a Final Fantasy game.

Turn-based, non-skilled CRPGs are the closest approximation of the board-less combat that you are asking D&D to return to: simplistic game-states of "I hit you, you hit me back" or "Dragon hits fighter, cleric heals fighter, wizard casts spell, ranger shoots dragon". Without the tactical and strategic nature of the board-game to impact and essentially limit player's choices within certain bounds, the challenge and reward for combat becomes a meta-game system of Healing/Spellslots used vs. XP/Treasure gained.