"Stunting" with Powers

[Nahat Anoj]

What do people think about "stunting" with Powers?

I have one player who does this frequently. It's awesome!

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.

Totally. I had one player use Diabolic Grasp to throw one kobold into another. He succeeded at an Arcana check, and the other kobold was knocked prone.

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."

Well, I sort of do share your confusion on this, since IMO Mage Hand isn't supposed to be all that strong while Diabolic Grasp is supposed to throw things around willy nilly. I probably wouldn't let Mage Hand be used this way, not without a large Arcana check at least.

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

I usually require a skill check of some kind to do the stunt, setting the difficulty based on an off-the-cuff estimate (4e is much superior to previous editions in this regard IMO). Failure means the stunt does work, goes awry, or whatever. In addition, I might make certain stunts be per encounter or per day, depending on the nature of the stunt.

So for alternate uses of Diabolic Grasp I'd have Arcana checks be rolled. I'd let Diabolic Grasp be used to pluck allies out of pits (a failed check means the spell attacks as normal, which still lets you get your ally out ), transport the warlock to new place like a kind of levitation power (I might make this a "daily stunt").

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.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I always say. Martial powers are just as fair game for this as others. For example, on an Athletics check, I'd let Tide of Iron be used to knock someone prone instead of pushing them back, especially if the player describes it well. As another example, I let players roll Acrobatics once per fight to use the Tumble power if they want. The people with Tumble don't feel left out, because they can do the manuver twice per encounter (once with a check, once "automatically").

It doesn't break the game at all. Far from it. What I have noticed is that most players don't take full advantage of stunts - I think it's the players who feel like the power system "shouldn't" allow this, not the DM (aka, me ) or the rules (which clearly suggest otherwise)!

 

[Nikosandros]

Balance seems to be preserved if you use a damage expression from the DMG.

So, basically the idea is to use the damage expressions instead of the normal effects of the power? I guess it's reasonable, but my main problem is that those tables in the DMG only mention damage. There is no discussion about conditions, forced movement or handing out bonuses or penalties. How do you balance those?

 

[Nikosandros]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I always say. Martial powers are just as fair game for this as others.

Agreed. If stunting is allowed, then martial characters deserve a piece of the action too!

 

[ashockney]

Ah, the page 42 debate!

I believe that what you're considering LostSoul, is that page 42 covers damage expressions well, however it does not cover any of the following:

forced movement effects
tactical condition effects
continuous damage effects

If your player tries to do something "cool" that is more in these categories, how does that disrupt the balance, if at all.

For example, a lvl 6 rogue (brutal scoundrel) sneaks up on a "guard" and wants to knock him out in one shot with a blow to the back of the head. Ok, stealth check, moderate DC = 17. The rogue's +12, so a five or better and he's golden. The rogue's deft strike with combat advantage and sneak attack would normally give him 1w(1d6)+Dex(4)+Cha(2)+sneak(2d6)+strength(2) = 3d6+8, with a successful Dex vs. AC attack (+2 for CA). (Wow, I need to play me a rogue...) If the rogue indicates he's willing to use his encounter power (Torturous Strike) it would be 2w + STR again, therefore 4d6+10. Now, the guard is a standard Level 5 soldier, AC 23 and 65 hp. This rogue can light him up, but not knock him out in a blow. Out of the book, my damage expressions, even at high are only 2d8+4 or 3d10+4, both close, but inferior to the rogue's basic damage. (Although not if you could add sneak attack damage on top?). One ruling, is that I could consider the target "helpless" and this is a coup de gras attack. This indicates that a successful hit, is a crit (max damage) and if bloodied, the target is unconscious. The encounter level damage expression would be sufficient to push the soldier past bloodied on a critical. But is this fair? Why wouldn't the rogue open with this attack in EVERY encounter? Why wouldn't EVERYONE try to do the same? To be less devastating, what if I rule that a successful attack will also provide a dazed condition effect (save ends). Or even more severe, a dazed effect with a failed save resulting in a stunned effect (save ends). This is perhaps less "powerful" than a coup de gras effect, but still a more powerful attack option than the rogue would otherwise have access. How powerful can these "condition" effects be? Does this also vary by level/power as a PC becomes more powerful? Perhaps at heroic the rogue can daze this way, paragon they can daze/stun, and epic they can coup de gras? These are important questions that still need to be fleshed out.

 

[Phaezen]

Ah, the page 42 debate!

I believe that what you're considering LostSoul, is that page 42 covers damage expressions well, however it does not cover any of the following:

forced movement effects
tactical condition effects
continuous damage effects

If your player tries to do something "cool" that is more in these categories, how does that disrupt the balance, if at all.

For example, a lvl 6 rogue (brutal scoundrel) sneaks up on a "guard" and wants to knock him out in one shot with a blow to the back of the head. Ok, stealth check, moderate DC = 17. The rogue's +12, so a five or better and he's golden. The rogue's deft strike with combat advantage and sneak attack would normally give him 1w(1d6)+Dex(7)+Cha(5)+sneak(2d6)+strength(5) = 3d6+17, with a successful Dex vs. AC attack (+2 for CA). (Wow, I need to play me a rogue...) If the rogue indicates he's willing to use his encounter power (Torturous Strike) it would be 2w + STR again, therefore 4d6+22. Now, the guard is a standard Level 5 soldier, AC 23 and 65 hp. This rogue can light him up, but not knock him out in a blow. Out of the book, my damage expressions, even at high are only 2d8+4 or 3d10+4, both inferior to my basic damage, unless you slide this expression in for "W" damage, and keep all the Dex, Str and sneak damage bonuses. One ruling, is that I could consider the target "helpless" and this is a coup de gras attack. This indicates that a successful hit, is a crit (max damage) and if bloodied, the target is unconscious. Both damage expressions would be sufficient to push the soldier past bloodied on a critical. But is this fair? Why wouldn't the rogue open with this attack in EVERY encounter? Why wouldn't EVERYONE try to do the same? To be less devastating, what if I rule that a successful attack will also provide a dazed condition effect (save ends). Or even more severe, a dazed effect with a failed save resulting in a stunned effect (save ends). This is perhaps less "powerful" than a coup de gras effect, but still a more powerful attack option than the rogue would otherwise have access. How powerful can these "condition" effects be? Does this also vary by level/power as a PC becomes more powerful? Perhaps at heroic the rogue can daze this way, paragon they can daze/stun, and epic they can coup de gras? These are important questions that still need to be fleshed out.

I would allow this in a skill challenge situation where the guard is not in a fight. It is a fairly well established scene, the rogue sneaking up behind a guard and knocking him unconscious with a blow to the head/vulcan neck grip/judo chop. Most probably run it as a skill challenge, using sneak (easy/moderate) and dex attack vs a moderate/difficult dc depending on the guard in question, forgoing damage to knock the target out.

As for not allowing this kind of thing in a fight, th guard is infinitely more aware in a fight and moving, so it is impossible to get a single clean blow. I would allow a dex vs ac attack to knock out a bloodied opponent (similar to intimidate causing a bloodied opponent to flee or surrender).

Note to self, explore ways of using various skills to allow players to defeat bloodied opponents without the grind.

Phaezen

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think, yes, one should probably allow this.

A "balancing" trick might be
- Require a skill check or attack roll (as appropriate) related only to the stunt you attempt
- A failure might lead to a drawback. (If you try to knock someone prone with Tide of Iron - perhaps by shoving him into a wall - a failure on the Str vs Fort roll might indicate you deal only half damage on a hit.) Note that some drawbacks are built in - for example, trying to use a Bigbys Icy Grasp or Diabolic Grasp to move an ally usually means you don't want to injure them. (Otherwise, it's not a stunt, just using a power against an ally.)

One could also use such tricks to split up other powers. For example, the Clerics "damage + benefitial effect for one ally" - a successful religion check can replace the attack and damage part.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The basic answer you're looking for is this:

Hell Yes, you allow that stuff!

The only question that really needs to be asked is: "Is it going to be fun?" If yes, then do it. If no (if it would make the encounter too easy, for instance), then say no.

That's true in any edition of D&D. In any PnP RPG. It's part of the joy of having a DM instead of a computer: you can do stuff that's fun that's outside of the rules. 4e isn't a lot different at the core of this.

How 4e is different is that it has that wrought iron fence made of tigers in between the rules and the story, so that the story might be "I conjure an infernal hand," but the rules are very explicit about what that hand does.

The main thing you need to pay attention to is that the powers don't overlap with other powers or effects.

This is actually kind of a sticky scenario, and it makes it a bit of an exercise in eithier (a) rules knowledge or (b) willful rules ignorace.

What I mean is this: If the warlock uses Diabolic Grasp to fling an enemy around, is he going to be acting like a Controller? Is that more effective than Wizard powers that fling the enemy around? Is the Wizard going to feel boned when he can't do things as cool as the creative warlock can?

Either you know the answer to that question because you have a good feel for/knowledge of what is possible at different levels....(method A)

Or you don't care about the answer to that question because awesome trumps balance (method B).

In other words, in 4e, just because you conjure a hand doesn't mean it should be able to do everything that a "conjured hand" should be able to do. Sometimes it might ruin someone else's fun if it could (because their powers now suck more). Eventually it might ruin EVERYONE else's fun if it can (because now everyone is adding stunts to their powers and exceeding the limits of damage and statuses). 4e is carefully balanced like a Jenga tower made of Jell-o about this idea, and messing with it can be playing with fire.

Ultimately, in my games, I don't care enough what gets burned -- I will always say yes to awesome.

For your games, you might have to be more careful, especially if 4e's carefully weighted balance is important to you.

 

[LostSoul]

For example, a lvl 6 rogue (brutal scoundrel) sneaks up on a "guard" and wants to knock him out in one shot with a blow to the back of the head.

I actually had this sort of thing come up in a game. The rogue was sneaking off to assassinate the boss (Balgron in KotS, I think) and when he opened the door he saw a guard.

I didn't allow the rogue to kill him in one blow. I let the PC "silence" the guard with a standard action. Dex vs. Fort, I think it was. He punched the goblin in the throat and left him on the ground, gasping for air (game effect - could not make noise until the end of the rogue's next turn), and the rogue gave Balgron a Coup de Grace.

In retrospect, I would make that duration (save ends), so that you can kill him while he's trying to make noise.

 

[LostSoul]

Totally. I had one player use Diabolic Grasp to throw one kobold into another. He succeeded at an Arcana check, and the other kobold was knocked prone.

That is awesome.

I usually require a skill check of some kind to do the stunt, setting the difficulty based on an off-the-cuff estimate (4e is much superior to previous editions in this regard IMO). Failure means the stunt does work, goes awry, or whatever. In addition, I might make certain stunts be per encounter or per day, depending on the nature of the stunt.

So for alternate uses of Diabolic Grasp I'd have Arcana checks be rolled. I'd let Diabolic Grasp be used to pluck allies out of pits (a failed check means the spell attacks as normal, which still lets you get your ally out ), transport the warlock to new place like a kind of levitation power (I might make this a "daily stunt").

I never considered making it key off a check. That sounds like a good idea.

I wouldn't have a skill check + an attack roll, but I see where you're coming from.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I always say. Martial powers are just as fair game for this as others. For example, on an Athletics check, I'd let Tide of Iron be used to knock someone prone instead of pushing them back, especially if the player describes it well. As another example, I let players roll Acrobatics once per fight to use the Tumble power if they want. The people with Tumble don't feel left out, because they can do the manuver twice per encounter (once with a check, once "automatically").

Yeah, that's where the skill check really shines. 1[W] + Prone is a 1st-level Fighter Encounter - Sweeping Blow or something. If you can do that with Tide of Iron, what's the point?

I think that I'd probably impose a penalty on failure instead of having an extra die roll. I like risk and having each roll mean something. So for the "Knock him down with my shield", aka drop him Prone with Tide of Iron, on a miss you might lose your shield bonus, lose your shield (on the ground at your feet), or end up prone yourself.

Good post, nice thoughts.

 

[LostSoul]

How 4e is different is that it has that wrought iron fence made of tigers in between the rules and the story, so that the story might be "I conjure an infernal hand," but the rules are very explicit about what that hand does.

I think this is complete nonsense.