"Stunting" with Powers

[Rel]

Much easier is to make the guard a Minion with regards to non-lethal damage. Successful stealth check + successful hit = unconscious guard.

This is sort of my take as well to an extent. I could easily foresee three flavors of guard, two of which are already supported by the rules.

The first is the total mook guard. He's a minion. This is the guy who guards the guardpost that nobody ever tries to get past. He's barely above the peasant militia.

The second is part of the Royal Guard. He's a soldier and a good one. He's seen more than one battle and he knows that he is part of an elite unit that stands between the King and those that would try and do him harm. Even if taken unawares (unlikely given his good Perception) he won't go down without a fight.

The third is the middle ground (and unsupported by the rules but easy enough to implement). He's a soldier and has been trained. But he's not a hardened veteran. He'll keep a sharp eye out but if taken by surprise he may fall dead or unconscious without a sound. So he's treated as a Minion during the Surprise round and after that he's a regular Soldier.

 

[LostSoul]

4e's razor-balance on the powers, however, makes it a little bit wonkier if you hope to preserve that balance.

I don't think that the balance is on the powers. I think 4E balances things on actions.

Which is why it can be dangerous to ask 4e "Well, what can this conjured hand actually do?" The answer is right in the power: that's all that the hand can do, and it can do that fairly reliably. To give it other stuff it can do risks disturbing the careful balance that enables this "fun" (if it's not carefully watched).

I don't think it will ruin the balance.

You should be able to do this every round with a Standard Action:
- low damage
- apply a minor condition (Prone, Forced Movement, Slowed)

Every round. If you ask, "What can this hand do?" It won't ruin the balance of the game if you decide to use it to make an attack or apply a condition. Every single round, regardless of the circumstances.

That's why we don't have to worry about what Mage Hand can do.

Your wildly creative player may end up contributing more to the game than your more casual or strategic buddy, which, generally, isn't much of a desired effect.

Yes it is. It rewards people who get into the game.


*

How does this work, though? In the OP I talked about using Diabolic Grasp to knock someone Prone - basically, trading Slide for Prone.

Is this a fair exchange? What about other powers doing the same thing - instead of a -2 to attacks for one round from Witchfire, could you say it's Prone?

What if you used the hand to burn his eyeballs out, making him Blind? Too much?

Do you even have to worry about applying different Conditions?

Does it remove tactical choices from the players? Does doing this add to them? That is the biggest point, I think. If the powers end up being "do anything", on the one extreme, would you then have more choice because you have to realize what the best thing to do right now would be?

If we allow this sort of thing with a penalty for failure, what sorts of penalties should they be? If I want to use my At-Will power to blind someone, should that be a bigger penalty than if I just want to knock him down? If so, how much, and should you even allow the option to Blind someone with an At-Will?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

Glad you liked it! FWIW, I probably wouldn't bother with trying to impose penalties on failure - if you come down too hard, players won't bother attempting these stunts. Alternatively, if failure means "What you want happens, but with extra complications," then that's also fine. This is basicaly the case with using Diabolic Grasp to transport allies. If you fail your Arcana check, you still transport your buds ... but it's a bumpy ride.

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.

You're seriously over reacting to "balancing the roles."

 

[I'm A Banana]

And you know the dirty secret, Kamikaze Midget? Stunting with "powers" in 3E could also lead to imbalances.

It can do that in any edition. But since this thread is about 4e, I thought I'd point out some of 4e's specific complexities on the issue. To a pretty big extent, it was assumed that you would "stunt" with powers in earlier editions (which is part of the reason for 3e's sprawling rules system). 4e does not assume that.

The stunt rules tell the DM it's okay to use these stunts.

And they're very specific about what those stunts can accomplish, and what they're there to do. I don't think the omission of status ailments was at all unintentional, for this reason. This doesn't include stunting "with powers," and especially not on a reliable basis.

If the Fighter player finds a way to pull of a limited damage expression stunt every encounter and the Rogue player never figures this out, this is the same as a Fighter player finding ways to act tactically "smart" - using his Close Burst powers when he is surrounded, waiting for the Warlords Forious Smash to hit before using a daily or encounter power, while the Rogue player misses such tactical opportunities.

The difference is in the DM's judgment, mostly. If awesome verbiage "wins" more often, that favors certain kinds of players (and classes) over others. The rules, meanwhile, aren't subjective.

The real imbalance you create is that it gets easier against monsters. But so what? Better tactics also make you fare better against monsters. That's what we want.

Which is the whole "being fine with burning the rules" thing I mentioned. It's not a condemnation of anything, just a point that it might happen.

I don't think that the balance is on the powers. I think 4E balances things on actions.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. It seems to me that powers and actions are two things that are both used for balance, rather than one or the other exclusively.

You should be able to do this every round with a Standard Action:
- low damage
- apply a minor condition (Prone, Forced Movement, Slowed)

Every round. If you ask, "What can this hand do?" It won't ruin the balance of the game if you decide to use it to make an attack or apply a condition. Every single round, regardless of the circumstances.

That's why we don't have to worry about what Mage Hand can do.

That's pretty subjective, really, and certainly can have repercussions beyond "mage hand for one round."

Yes it is. It rewards people who get into the game.

It also penalizes someone who's more comfortable working with the rules rather than around them. Again, not necessarily a problem, but something to watch for (especially if you have a rules-lawery player at the same table as a metaphor wizard).

You're seriously over reacting to "balancing the roles."

Possibly, but that quote from me doesn't have much to do with balancing the roles, so you'd have to explain your case a little better before I cop to anything.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It can do that in any edition. But since this thread is about 4e, I thought I'd point out some of 4e's specific complexities on the issue. To a pretty big extent, it was assumed that you would "stunt" with powers in earlier editions (which is part of the reason for 3e's sprawling rules system). 4e does not assume that.

3E doesn't assume "stunts" with powers either. It has standard combat maneuvers, but they are not stunts, they are just using the rules as written. "Abusing" spells is certainly not assumed. If a stunt is described as a feat, it's no longer a stunt.

And they're very specific about what those stunts can accomplish, and what they're there to do. I don't think the omission of status ailments was at all unintentional, for this reason. This doesn't include stunting "with powers," and especially not on a reliable basis.

I am not sure - did the described stunt against an Ogre not put a condition to him?

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. It seems to me that powers and actions are two things that are both used for balance, rather than one or the other exclusively.

Without claiming I understand Lostsoul better then you, basically powers allow you to do "more" with your action then typical. Stunts allow you to do "more" with your action, too. (More is typically in relation to a basic attack.)
It now depends on what your core assumptions are for stunts:
- Assuming that people don't get to stunt every round (since you still need some creativity and unique conditions), one could say it doesn't matter if they stunt with a power or without a power.

- If we assume that the RAW suggests against stunting with powers, and that you can also pull of a stunt most (if not every) round (you have very creative players and very dynamic terrain?), a "power stunt" would need to have a drawback (weakening the powers effects) to gain the stunt benefit.

In either case, there is certainly still something to gain by stunting, but it is dependent on clever tactics, just as powers get more effective if you use them at the right opportunity.

It also penalizes someone who's more comfortable working with the rules rather than around them. Again, not necessarily a problem, but something to watch for (especially if you have a rules-lawery player at the same table as a metaphor wizard).

It is certainly true that you have to be watchful - but this is a challenge you have to deal with even without stunts or "power stunts".

You might have one rules-savy player, one tactical gifted, and one just there to roll the dice and have some fun with friends with no tactical understanding. Adding the "stunt-savy" player adds to that, but it still doesn't change what you always have to do - look out for how to ensure that everyone has fun. I suppose the best thing to do is remind everyone that they are a team and they should help each other - so if stunt-savy player sees a great opportunity for a stunt, he might suggest it to another player...

 

[Stalker0]

In my game I mainly use skills to let players augment powers.

I use a version of 77M stunt system. Usually I allow a skill check before any other actions. If they succeed, they get a bonus to an attack, more damage, etc. If they fail, they take a penalty.

Some stunts my party has done.

After using stand the fallen, the cleric made a rousing speech using diplomacy to get his party back on track. I offered everyone the option to take the risk of getting a bonus or a penalty before the roll was made. On a success, +2 to the next attack roll, failure -2.

The party fought 3 brains in a jar (thank you open grave) and the wizard started using his mage hand to poke one of the brains, giving it an attack penalty.

The fighter used athletics to jump off a wall and come down on an enemy, doing extra damage and knocking him prone.

 

[maddman75]

I've been thinking how to deal with stunts. One one hand, you want to encourage creativity at the game table. On the other, you don't want Diabolic Grasp to become Diabolic Grasp and throw. So here's the guidelines I think I'm going to use.

Page 42 - Page 42 should be used to adjucate these extra uses of powers. Not much disagreement here. Most of the time I'm going to call for a skill check of some kind to see if the stunt works.

Everyone can do it - This isn't just the wizards. Maybe the fighter Cleaves not into a bad guy, but into a rope holding up a chandalier.

Your role determines your effectiveness - Nothing hard and fast, but a Wizard trying to stunt a spell into immobilizing a bad guy is going to have a lower DC than a Warlock. Not that you can't try, but controllers have an easier time of controlling it.

Stunts are Unique - Stunts are supposed to be one time dramatic uses of powers. It shouldn't turn into 'the good ol' Diabolic Grasp and throw 3 squares trick'. If you want that, then work with the DM to develop a new power. No repeat stunts. You can have a slight variation, but they are one time only.

Stunts are for the desperate - Stunts can only be done when the PC is out of action points, encounter powers, and daily powers. If they really, really want to do one before then, they can spend one of these things to do the stunt. The purpose behind this is two fold. First, it further encourages PCs to go without rest. Second is I think it might make long grindy fights more fun. Once they're out of powers, they can start stunting for free.

Bad guys can stunt too - Just sayin. Once the bad guys are out of AP and encounter powers, the DM is free to get creative with their stunts as well.

Stunts are descriptive - Exalted-style, a good stunt should be something cool. No, you don't have to wax philisophical or anything, but if you don't make a token effort I'm giving you a -2. Make something that takes terrain, environment, or ongoing plot and I'll give you a +2. Make everyone at the table gape in wonder at your awesome and I'll give you +4.