"Stunting" with Powers

[LostSoul]

What do people think about "stunting" with Powers?

(Is "stunting" the right term? What I mean is when you try something that's not covered by the rules, aka page 42. I would rather Stunt 42, but that's me.)

So I'm playing the other day and I know the Warlock has Diabolic Grasp. For some reason the thought jumped into my head: What if he decided to knock a guy Prone with that?

Makes sense, right? The hand picks someone up and throws them (while burning them with Infernal fire). But it could just as easily trip them, or grab them, or even snatch the weapon out of their hand and throw it away. In-game logic-wise.

So why not? For some reason I'm hesitant to say, "Yeah, with Diabolic Grasp you can do that," but with something like, say, Mage Hand, I'd have no problem saying, "You want to push him? Standard action, Int vs. Fort, Hit: Slide 1."

Would this be breaking the economy? If so, how?

I can pontentially see a problem in the fact that it makes magical powers more effective - a martial power pretty much does what it says, but magical ones could do all sorts of different things. But then again, if the PC is using a Standard action, it seems like it should be just fine.

Interested to know what the masses think.

 

[On Puget Sound]

This works well in 3E; in fact, it is almost the definition of 3E, the fun part that people miss in 4E. 4E supports power use inthis way much less.

In 3E a spell's description (the fluff) is the important part; GMs and players take that fluff and use it to justify new and better game effects (crunch). In 4E the game effects produced by a power are the only game effects that power should produce, and if the fluff does not support that effect in this circumstance, GMs and players are encouraged to rewrite the fluff to explain it. Examples:

3E, druid: Those refugees are really dirty and stinky after two weeks on the road, and the lord of the castle won't let them take shelter unless I can clean them up. OK, I shift to dire lion form...now I cast "purify food and drink" on the refugees. They are TOO food, if you like I'll eat one to prove it... (fluff trumps crunch)

4E, wizard: I cast icy terrain on the dragon, causing it to fall prone. Well sure he's flying, but the spell doesn't specify "non-flying targets"; this time my spell causes ice to form on his wings, bringing him to the ground. (crunch trumps fluff)

 

[LostSoul]

Okay...

Care to explain why the game effects that a Power produces should be the only effects the Power produces?

 

[On Puget Sound]

Because in 4E balance is king, and in exception-based design allowing powers to be used in unexpected ways, given infinite splatbooks, inevitably leads to instakills, Pun-Pun, and cheese among players who seek such things. It's like deciding in a Magic: The Gathering game that lightning bolts should do more damage to metallic creatures, or that a wall of stone can't be given Hermetic Study because a wall can't study magic. The power does exactly what it says it does, no more and no less, and so balance is preserved.

3E is different.

 

[malraux]

I've been thinking about how to encourage players to try to think about going beyond the power description without unbalancing things. I've been thinking about letting action points do bigger things (ie thunderwave shoves someone into a wall doing extra damage). I kinda miss the idea that action points can be used as plot points. Or maybe actually institute plot points (you get a plot point after combats where you don't get an action point).

 

[LostSoul]

Because in 4E balance is king, and in exception-based design allowing powers to be used in unexpected ways, given infinite splatbooks, inevitably leads to instakills, Pun-Pun, and cheese among players who seek such things. It's like deciding in a Magic: The Gathering game that lightning bolts should do more damage to metallic creatures, or that a wall of stone can't be given Hermetic Study because a wall can't study magic. The power does exactly what it says it does, no more and no less, and so balance is preserved.

And if the DM is the gatekeeper to this, and he uses page 42 to guide his decisions?

I'm not saying that player should be able to say, "Well, he's metallic, my lighting powers should do more damage"; that's outside the scope of the rules. What I am saying is that a player should be able to say, "I shoot my lighting bolt at the water; I want to blast all of them in it."

At that point the DM turns to page 42, picks a damage expression, and rolls with it. I don't see how that breaks the system, considering that the PC is using a Standard action to deal damage with an attack.

That is, the action is not "I apply Vulnerable 10 Lighting to the creature because it makes sense"; it's more like "I shoot my lightning bolt at the iron creature and, since everyone's standing on iron floor, they should take damage as well." Using a damage expression seems balanced; I'm not sure if it is, but that's the point of the thread.

 

[The Green Adam]

The whole reason 4e doesn't interest me in the least...

From LostSoul

"I can pontentially see a problem in the fact that it makes magical powers more effective - a martial power pretty much does what it says, but magical ones could do all sorts of different things. But then again, if the PC is using a Standard action, it seems like it should be just fine."

We certainly wouldn't want creativity on the part of the player to make their actions more effective. Sorry...

I am of the opinion/school of thought that abilities, both magical and martial, should be flexible enough for at least a little creative input from the player. I would reward the player for thinking outside-the-box if they came up with an alternate use for such a common spell. After all, magical characters currently have very few spell choices, though they can use the power they do choose at will. The same spell again and again and again and....

I'm not saying that player should be able to say, "Well, he's metallic, my lighting powers should do more damage"; that's outside the scope of the rules.

Well...one of my players was being chased by creatures through a shallow pool of water. When she got up on dry land she turned around and thrust her lightning shooting sword into the pool rationalizing that the water would conduct the electricty and either do more damage or hit more targets. I answered with a resouding "heck yeah!".

On Puget Sound called it perfectly, 4E is about balance. IMHO it is about balance to the point of 'press button-effect goes off'. Forget outside-the-box. It is the box. Especially in the area of magic and the roles the classes play, 4E is very particular about what you can and can't do.

AD

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Not the same but your mention of Powers and Stunting and pg. 42 reminds me of a House-Rule of mine:

-One can split Power elements up and add aspects of Skill Checks (like Acrobatic Stunts), pg. 42, etc. between them. So a PC could do, for instance a Power that allows them to slide then attack, but instead do a Slide then a Acrobatic Stunt followed by the attack.

As for the other part. I have used Powers in lots of different ways, like using a Power to give a bonus to a Intimidate check, using a Power that slides to give a bonus to a Athletics check in a chase Skill Challenge, etc. What you want to do, I would do too. Your not overpowering it really since they got a chance at failing with that aspect too.

Heck, one example of my own, I let my Martial Characters to use Powers to cling to a wall, quite cool actually: Uses Power and Slides and jumps off balcony, uses Attack part against the Wall and shoves his blade in from which he holds onto.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My favourite Power Stunt from the Slight Detour game is when barsoomcore used Split the Tree to split a tree.

For everyone who isn't LostSoul - a pair of velociraptors were coming for the ranger in the jungle. He had the Split the Tree Daily Power - make a ranged attack against two targets. Rather than using his double-barrelled flintlock rifle to simply say "I shoot at both dinosaurs", though, he asked me if he could use the Daily Power to shoot at a dead tree leaning alongside the path the dinosaurs were on, causing it to topple and hit both of them. Same mechanical effect, different flavour - ragned attack roll dealing damage to two targets.

But since it was cool, I threw in a rider effect - the tree pinned them down, giving them an immobilised (save ends) condition. One of them saved pretty much immediately, but the other one spent most of the fight stuck under a log.

(It was almost as cool as later in the same fight when LostSoul's fighter punched a velociraptor in the face. But that wasn't a Power Stunt, so I'm not counting it here )

-Hyp.

 

[LostSoul]

We certainly wouldn't want creativity on the part of the player to make their actions more effective.

Yes, we would. We just wouldn't want the only players to be able to make those sorts of actions ones who use magic.

Well...one of my players was being chased by creatures through a shallow pool of water. When she got up on dry land she turned around and thrust her lightning shooting sword into the pool rationalizing that the water would conduct the electricty and either do more damage or hit more targets. I answered with a resouding "heck yeah!".

Which is exactly the example I specified. And my question: do you think it's cool for 4E, or not? If not, why not? Balance seems to be preserved if you use a damage expression from the DMG.