Missing from the DM's Toolkit: powers

[ryryguy]

So I still haven't read the new books cover to cover, so if this is touched on somewhere else, let me know. But in the generally excellent "DM's Toolkit" chapter of the DMG, there is a glaring absence: no advice about altering powers or creating new ones from scratch.

We do have that "damage expressions" table, and some of the hints about how to use it with monsters can be applied to powers in general. We can extrapolate from the discussion of how monster role affects damage to how player class role might affect damage.

However, there's no advice about how to figure the tradeoffs between damage and extra effects, durations, melee vs. ranged, special requirements, etc. And really nothing about how you might go about creating and balancing new utility powers.

I find the absence to be particularly annoying when considering the "missing" classes of bard, barbarian, monk, druid. It would be much easier to homebrew versions of these with some advice about power design. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say power design advice was left out to try to sell more PHB2's, but do you think WotC is intentionally keeping their power design framework proprietary, for whatever reason?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My guess is that a lot of power creation is still more "art" then science.

- How do you achieve the appropriate flavor of a power?
- How do you judge damage vs secondary effect and keywords?

The rules provide us enough guidelines for damage expectations, and I think they also give a good insight into what secondary effects are appropriate, but I am not sure the guidelines will ever get any "harder". The remaining thing to do is play-testing. Once you got the general feel of the power down, you should be able to tweak it. One [W] more or less, 1+CHA squares instead of 2+CHA, stunned or dazed.

 

[ryryguy]

My guess is that a lot of power creation is still more "art" then science.

Agreed, and I'm not asking for a full-on, Hero System-style point cost system. But, I think there's probably still a fair amount of science that could have been exposed, but hasn't been.

The rules provide us enough guidelines for damage expectations, and I think they also give a good insight into what secondary effects are appropriate...

Where do you get that insight about what secondary effects are appropriate? I guess to some degree it's implicit in the powers that are already defined, is that what you mean? True... but also something of a pain to tease that out, especially when you consider all the different axes of variation and no real guide about which ones are significant or not. E.g., "This level 3 defender melee power applies conditions X + Y, while this level 6 striker ranged power also applies conditions X + Z. How much of that 3 level difference comes from the difference between Y and Z, or the difference between melee and ranged, or the differerence between defender and striker?" It's not that these sorts of questions can't be answered, but it's not super easy to do, and it's annoying that the WotC designers probably do have at least fuzzy answers that they haven't shared.

 

[EATherrian]

This is something I noticed as well. I'm also missing how to create new classes. If it's in there and I'm missing it, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

 

[catsclaw227]

I can't seem to find something, even a paragraph, about creating minions of monster types that don't have any (in my case, drow and doppelgangers).

 

[SWBaxter]

I wouldn't be particularly shocked if one or more of the early GSL products involves powers - maybe one book for monsters, another for class powers. I don't think it would be too difficult to arrange all the MM powers by role and level, genericize them a bit, then figure out some basic scaling guidelines; hey-presto, monster creation kit.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can't seem to find something, even a paragraph, about creating minions of monster types that don't have any (in my case, drow and doppelgangers).

Yes, this is definitely missing. Maybe they thought that it would easy enough to find out? Or did they miss it? Didn't want to?

It appears as if the rule goes a little like this:
- Create a monster as described by the Roles.
- Drop all hit points except one, add note that misses never deal damage.
- Minimize Damage (use the damage expression provided for the role and treat all dice rolls as 1s.)

The system is definitely imperfect - a Soldier loses less then a Brute (since the damage expression for at-will attacks only differ in dice, not fixed bonus.). I suppose we might be expected to use a specific role only?

 

[Ginnel]

take the same guidelines as 3rd edition

Uou look at the comparable powers from that level, say from all classes that share that role, then you make your power up, If you would always take that power over any of the others you've made it too powerful, of course 3rd ed had a level/max damage table, but even WotC ignored that in an attempt to bring and more and more powerful spells to make people buy books to be the "best", no flashly attack spells for clerics and druids pfft

 

[Ginnel]

- Minimize Damage (use the damage expression provided for the role and treat all dice rolls as 1s.)

half maximum damage surely?

kobold minions do 4 damage with a spear which is 1D8 and they have no stat bonuses to damage

 

[catsclaw227]

half maximum damage surely?

kobold minions do 4 damage with a spear which is 1D8 and they have no stat bonuses to damage

I might go with half damage. We'll see how it compares with other minions of different levels.