Keywords vs Damage Types

[The Crimson Binome]

It can get trickier if there are other effects that clearly follow the keyword - eg a Cold power that inflicts Slow. If you make that into a Fire power instead, does it still Slow (how? why? clearly it's not freezing anyone anymore) or (say) cause OG 5 Fire?

If you wanted to address this mechanically, how would you do it?

The way I see it, there are two approaches. You could either have a codified list of damage types and linked conditions (cold and slow, fire and ongoing damage, radiant and blinded, thunder and deafened), and then say that swapping out the damage type also swaps out the corresponding condition. Or, you could get all vague and just leave it for the DM to figure out, with a note that you should change the effects wherever it makes sense.

The first solution seems more likely to cause unintended consequences (e.g. if it's easier to slow a group, because slowing isn't as bad of a condition, and swapping it to ongoing damage or deafened would make it too good), but the second solution isn't very satisfying either.

 

[pemerton]

If you wanted to address this mechanically, how would you do it?

If you mean, how would I do this as a publisher, then I don't know. There's no simple answer, because the range of effects (in the fictional'ingame sens) and the range of effects (in the mechanical sense) is so great, and mixy-matchy, that blanket rules would be hard.

As a referee, though, it's something I would negotiate with the player in question for the power in question. That's much easier, because any given player only has a modest number of powers that will be undergoing this sort of swap, so working out the details probably wouldn't be too hard.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you wanted to address this mechanically, how would you do it?

The way I see it, there are two approaches. You could either have a codified list of damage types and linked conditions (cold and slow, fire and ongoing damage, radiant and blinded, thunder and deafened), and then say that swapping out the damage type also swaps out the corresponding condition. Or, you could get all vague and just leave it for the DM to figure out, with a note that you should change the effects wherever it makes sense.

The first solution seems more likely to cause unintended consequences (e.g. if it's easier to slow a group, because slowing isn't as bad of a condition, and swapping it to ongoing damage or deafened would make it too good), but the second solution isn't very satisfying either.

You would heavily codify the effects and which ones go with powers of which levels. You might have to create more standardized effects than you've mentioned, or at least varying degrees of them. So a level 1 cold power perhaps has a modest effect, whereas a level 20 cold power has a much more pronounced effect (of course many of the condition-based effects really don't become 'better' or 'worse' except relative to other effects, slowed is modestly effective in any level band for instance, though some movement modes can effectively negate it at higher levels). So its not really simple, but you could do something in that respect.

Thus if you take your level 5 fireball and turn it into an iceball, and its effect is 'push 2 and ongoing 5 fire damage' then its pretty easy, you can make it 'slowed and ongoing 5 cold damage' or something along those lines. Knowing that this is a roughly appropriate level 5 effect for each damage type, then the switch becomes fairly easy.

I guess, from an overall game design perspective, if you were going to modularize powers like this, why not do so as a more general set of rules? Instead of having many peculiar powers, simply have 'the level 5 appropriate bursty power, flavor with damage types as you wish' (IE pick one, or specialize in a specific type, etc). Of course now you've departed substantially from 4e, at least in terms of power structure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you wanted to address this mechanically, how would you do it?

The way I see it, there are two approaches. You could either have a codified list of damage types and linked conditions (cold and slow, fire and ongoing damage, radiant and blinded, thunder and deafened), and then say that swapping out the damage type also swaps out the corresponding condition. Or, you could get all vague and just leave it for the DM to figure out, with a note that you should change the effects wherever it makes sense.

Or, you could change not what it does, but how it does it. A Ray of Frost does cold damage and slows, presumably because you're numbed and shivering, well, or maybe because you're encumbered by a coating of ice, or ... it doesn't actually spell it out, does it? A Ray of Frost changed to fire damage might slow you because you're coughing & choking on the smoke, or stopping to put yourself out.

But, to build on the second idea - leaving it to the DM - it's yet another place he could open to p42 and work from there. Off-label power uses aren't entirely beyond the pale, especially if the player is 'being creative,' and the DM isn't sick of that, yet.

 

[Garthanos]

Or, you could change not what it does, but how it does it.

This is exactly how I do it of course. ;-), cannot imagine why.


It also works for when my ray of frost is cast on a flyer vs cast on a grounded character... different method.
Feet sticking to the ground is significantly different perceptually than wings clumped with ice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is exactly how I do it of course. ;-), cannot imagine why.


It also works for when my ray of frost is cast on a flyer vs cast on a grounded character... different method.
Feet sticking to the ground is significantly different perceptually than wings clumped with ice.

Yeah, and MOSTLY this is OK. It can seem a bit forced at times though.

I mean think about the 'Ray of Fire' example that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] uses: Why does a Ray of Fire cause you to move slower in order to put yourself out, but some other Fire power just does ongoing damage UNTIL you put yourself out (presumably covered by the save ends or the EONT or whatever it is). I'm not saying this doesn't work, but 4e always left me wondering why the same 'narrative' effects get mapped so inconsistently to mechanical effects. Of course I don't think 4e is especially unique in this respect. D&D in general has been fairly ad-hoc. It just seems that 4e, with its rich repertoire of standardized effects, didn't do better. Well, clearly it would have added a whole extra rule to do so.

I think maybe there should have been fewer but more interesting 'damage changers', and if effects WERE standardized then those could have been where some more comprehensive approach would be undertaken. In other words you could create a set of powers that exchange damage types and encapsulate the rules (however complex) for changing effects. Then anything which performs such an exchange would merely invoke one of these powers (as a free action probably, that should be flexible enough to cover pretty much all cases).

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, and MOSTLY this is OK. It can seem a bit forced at times though.

I mean think about the 'Ray of Fire' example that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] uses: Why does a Ray of Fire cause you to move slower in order to put yourself out, but some other Fire power just does ongoing damage UNTIL you put yourself out (presumably covered by the save ends or the EONT or whatever it is). I'm not saying this doesn't work, but 4e always left me wondering why the same 'narrative' effects get mapped so inconsistently to mechanical effects.

When I was mapping disarm to many different effects the majority were variable "narratively" due to npc response ... For instance I knock his weapon from his grip and he dives after it going prone is one possible or he clings tighter and he stumbles sideways in order to maintain grip.

If you arent spamming the mechanical effect situational variation within the narrative works but the tactical over specialization that is oft encouraged by the game actually fights against this by targeting a single mechanical effect.

 

[MwaO]

If you wanted to address this mechanically, how would you do it?

You make a few charts and then say item X uses chart Y when turning damage into Z.

So as an example, a flame tongue sword might say that it changes various elemental damage minor effects into ongoing 5 fire, medium effects into ongoing 5 fire plus refer to chart Y, and major effects into ongoing 10 fire plus refer to chart Y.

As an example, let's say you have a Stunned Save Ends. That's a relatively major effect. So the chart says make that into Dazed Save Ends+Ongoing Fire 10. But Slow, Prone, etc...make into Ongoing fire 5.

 

[Garthanos]

You make a few charts and then say item X uses chart Y when turning damage into Z.

So as an example, a flame tongue sword might say that it changes various elemental damage minor effects into ongoing 5 fire, medium effects into ongoing 5 fire plus refer to chart Y, and major effects into ongoing 10 fire plus refer to chart Y.

As an example, let's say you have a Stunned Save Ends. That's a relatively major effect. So the chart says make that into Dazed Save Ends+Ongoing Fire 10. But Slow, Prone, etc...make into Ongoing fire 5.

Removing tactical predictability/agency ought to really be worth the end results. In my opinion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Removing tactical predictability/agency ought to really be worth the end results. In my opinion.

Again, it also reduces the sheer number of powers that you need to produce for a game. A single basic close blast can be almost trivially converted to any damage type and thus introduce a range of effects.