I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Windjammer]

It requires the 4E rules set because the ruleset doesn't just provide some random DCs, but also suggested damage values that are "balanced" for that level.

It wouldn't make sense to be transplant it 1:1 to M&M or 3rd Edition, since they have different assumptions on damage per round, difficulty of tasks and the action economy.

For what it's worth, you could run with the basic idea easily enough in 3E. Simply set the PC's Balance/Jump/Tumble check DC at the monster's defense "score" (simply assume the monster is taking 10 for its Save roll). Then gather the necessary "average damage per level" numbers from the Pathfinder Beta RPG, chapter 12, table 12-6, entries "High Average Damage" and "Low Average Damage". That table contains average damage output by monsters - per CR, ranging from 0.5 to 20 - but gives the DM a good idea which numbers to assign for your PCs. Finally, for a neat complete listing of all conditions your PCs' stunts might inflict on the monsters, keep Rules Compendium (pages 34-35) flipped open at the table.

Either that, or have a look at Book of Iron Might, chapter 1, or Iron Heroes chapter 5 for a 3.5 stunt system. The nice thing with the former is that it gives you all the DC numbers you'll ever need - something I've (so far) had a hard time to extract for 4E. Before this thread, that is!

 

[Pbartender]

Right. I was under the assumption that this was the skill challenge part. I used skill challenges alot when I was running 4e, but they were not too different than how I ran them in 3rd edition.

Yes this case is not what I thought it was.

With regards to skill challenges, I've done occasionally done something similar for impromptu "opposed" skill challenges.

Simply put, I make the DC of each skill check equal to the appropriate passive skill check of the enemy opposing the PCs. Athletics vs. passive Endurance during a chase, for example.

 

[billd91]

With all due respect, I don't think the rationale is all that different at all. A daily power can represent a maneuver that requires the perfect unison of physical prowess and mental focus to pull off, something that wears not only on your body but on your nerves as well. It may not exhaust you, but it does require an expenditure of effort and relies on your training and mental acuity as well.

You could certainly push the comparison in that direction. And as the character gets more dailies to expend through level advancement, you could say that the amount of effort becomes relatively lower just as you can with barbarians and raging in 3x.

But then, you run up against the gamist nature of the dailies - each one being expendable exactly once no matter how many dailies you can actually use during the day and no matter what the combat situation is. Does each daily somehow draw on a different reserve of energy in the character? Meh. Personally, I'd have been happier if the character had a number of known tricks and then the capacity to use them as seems fit in a fight - much like a spontaneous caster in 3x.

This all contributes to why I find the martial dailies in 4e particularly unsatisfying, yet the idea of encounter-based powers bothers me much less, largely for the reasons I posted many messages above.

 

[Wrathamon]

I personally wouldnt even try to explain Encounter and Daily powers with martial characters in some real physics sort of way... or any of the classes for that matter...

to me its not that they "cant" physically do these cool moves at will. iIs that in a story, whether it be a film, a comic, a game, a book, a tv show they dont do their big bad super move all the time... they do it in a key moment to finish the fight or change the tide of the battle.
Why? because its cool... its exciting and its a game based on fictional action stories.

Voltron could use his Blazing Sword at any time to kill the robeast but he waits till the show is almost over to chop it in two.

you can say its exhausting or you wasted your Ki, but to me these are all just fictional fluff to describe something that is happening in the game. Trying to provide some sort of psuedo world reason is just going to cause more questions by the players. Change it from Daily Power to your Daily Action Moment. And encounter powers to signature move... the at wills are your basic filler between big moments.

I also allow the players to use their abilities outside of combat using skill challenges... it works fairly well.

I even ran a low magic swashbuckling game and we changed all the fluff of the powers of the marital characters to be more in line with something in the real world. Like pirate cat mentioned... pulling the rug out from under them... using a torch or kicking the campfire for a move that causes fire damage... etc.

It was loads of fun

 

[Grimstaff]

Voltron ftw!

 

[Old Gumphrey]

So why would the character, knowing only what the character knows, choose not to Brute Strike most of the time?

Because in a fight, you're not given the option to wind back and swing as hard as you can every single time you attack. But instead of the DM telling you when the option becomes available, you get to declare it. Once per day.

 

[resistor]

Because in a fight, you're not given the option to wind back and swing as hard as you can every single time you attack. But instead of the DM telling you when the option becomes available, you get to declare it. Once per day.

Another aspect of this is that, when you use, say, a utility power, especially ones that do damage even on a miss, you can flavor it as "I tried to do daily X, but he parried. But I still managed to nick him!"

 

[Mallus]

IWhen I was introduced to D&D back in 1977 it was sold to me on the concepts of exploration and pretending to be a fantastic character living in a fantastic world.

That's what my 4e group is doing; pretending to be fantastic (if somewhat perverse) characters living (and looting) a fantastic (if somewhat perverse) world. What about your initial forays into 4e didn't give you this experience?

I need to come of with a single unifying line of bull like the arcane spells have always had.

That's a bracingly honest way to put it. Let me give it a shot. Think of a Encounter/Daily martial exploits as if they were critical hits.

Both are attacks that have greater than normal effect. Both occur with predictable frequency, given a certain number of attacks made in a certain span of time (okay, so it's very predictable in the case of Encounter/Daily powers, but bear with me).

The chief difference is that Encounter/Daily powers occur when the player decides they do, and there's a hard limit to have many can occur in a given day. But viewed over time, from a statistical perspective, they're rather similar. Opportunities for greater effect occur during combat and are exploited.

I mean, nobody gripes about a natural 20 being too gamist and non-immersive, do they?

Also, re: immersion in combat. 4e doesn't prevent players from making in-character tactical decisions. A 4e fighter can still decide to help an ally whose been surrounded, choose to shield a helpless peasant, charge through ranks of henchmen to get at the smirking necromancer, etc.

Sure the mechanics representation of fighting is different, but that's been the case all along. Look at 1e. Minute long combat rounds which assumed multiple blows, tactical movement, feints, etc. that the player had no control over. A whole slew of tactical choices the player didn't get to make, because the system operated on a different level of abstraction. Which is what it boils down to, what level (and kind) of abstraction are you comfortable with?

If an encountered monster uses a bow and that monster is defeated then the party now has that bow. The creature and its bow doesn’t just evaporate leaving behind a scroll and a +2 dagger. The creature may indeed have those items and if it has items that can be used to defend itself then it will most likely do so.

Our group does this and it works fine.

 

[jbear]

I've been toying with this:

For characters in the martial power source, PC's roll two every round before any actions, a on either allows for an encounter power and a on both dice allows for an encounter or daily. For this to work a fighter does not expend his encounter or daily, so he could spam a daily a few times in one encounter - if he is a lucky punk. The die rolls simulate chance and circumstance.

Nice, I like it.

You won't be feeling the grind in your games.

You could balance this with adding a standard 6 recharge to monster encounter powers. If it comes up they use it. Easy to track and adds danger to the combat.

 

[Ariosto]

Caveat: I have not read all the discussion thus far.

Play Style: I think this is probably a pretty significant mismatch. I advise either adapting expectations to the game, or going for one better suited to your preferred style. I really don't see any compelling reason to keep struggling with an infelicitous combination.

Martial Powers and Rules as Physics: How about, "The gods favor those who entertain them." The world seems like a game because it is a game. I think one can have the mundane world work much as one would expect. The weird rules apply to heroes and monsters, whose powers reflect their roles as pieces in a divine game. One might turn to Greek mythology for inspiration.

Treasure Parcels: If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. It looks to me as if the bonuses really critical to the assumed game balance could be made into inherent attributes of characters with no great harm.