Stunts or Powers?

[Ellington]

That's a reasonable point of view.

My point of view is that we already call for an attack roll, and that can resolve whether or not the attack works.

If you limit potential actions by creating a list, players must consult the list before they attempt anything. In AD&D this was "I can't climb, I'm not a thief"; in 3E this was "Do you have the feat for that?"; and in 4E it was "Do you have a power for that?"

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But it means that the way players make choices is going to be different.

So we ask: what do players do in this game? Do they pick from a list of possible actions and execute the rules that relate to that action, or do they come up with an action on their own and apply the general action resolution rules to resolve it?

I prefer the latter because I think it draws on one of the strengths of RPGs - so-called "tactical infinity". (You don't really have infinite options because you're limited by what's plausible in the setting, but you get the point.)

I personally think tactical infinity is too vulnerable to DM bias.

Let's say the player wants to spin around in an arc with his sword and attack all the opponents around him. Sounds reasonable enough. But without rules to describe the action/power, it comes down to the DM to decide how the action is resolved. Is the attack made at a -4 penalty? A -2 penalty? No penalty? This can be tough to decide and can have a big impact on the balance of the game. And how often can the player do this? Is there a limit? Why not attack enemies in a circle arc whenever you're making an attack? The overall effectiveness of the class depends heavily on the answers to these questions, and what one DM allows another might not. This could potentially turn players away from the system since the effectiveness of their characters depends on who they're playing with.

Spellcasters don't have this problem since they have clear rules on how their powers work and when they can use them. Their power is a lot less dependent on what DM they're playing with and they don't have to ask for permission when they want to do something cool. They feel in control of their own characters, and that's very important to a lot of people, including myself.

I understand how having to know how to perform a whirlwind might be iffy from a simulationist point of view, it makes for a much more concrete, efficient and reliable game, and I think that's important for such a big product as D&D. That's what I want from D&D Next.

 

[LostSoul]

I personally think tactical infinity is too vulnerable to DM bias.

I think that DM bias is a feature rather than a flaw. I think there should be a reason why you want to play with one person over another.

Let's say the player wants to spin around in an arc with his sword and attack all the opponents around him. Sounds reasonable enough. But without rules to describe the action/power, it comes down to the DM to decide how the action is resolved. Is the attack made at a -4 penalty? A -2 penalty? No penalty? This can be tough to decide and can have a big impact on the balance of the game. And how often can the player do this? Is there a limit? Why not attack enemies in a circle arc whenever you're making an attack?

It's not too hard, you just need to design decent action resolution rules that cover these sorts of issues. Typical D&D combat doesn't; it goes with a far more abstract system (although more and more detailed abstraction as the editions have rolled on). There's no way to make typical D&D combat work without a list of powers. (That's why you don't have called shots.)

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with those of you who want stunt description rather than using powers.

Strictly defined powers make actions seem too "push button" - like.

I don't mind the DM being an arbitrator or referee, and I don't mind a DM telling me how difficult something would be if I tried to do it. That's the key. There should be well-written guidelines to set DCs for stunts or actions so that DMs can make more consistent rulings, but the stunts should not be so specified that they play the same in every situation. Class and PC level should probably make some attempts easier than others.

I'm not sure how to do it, but I'd like attack actions and non-attack actions to be more fluid and cinematic than reading the same flavor text for a power every time.

 

[slobster]

I think that DM bias is a feature rather than a flaw. I think there should be a reason why you want to play with one person over another.

If I want to play with one person over another, it's because I like the person and enjoy playing the game with them. This is true whether we are talking about D&D, some other pen & paper system, or Monopoly. I don't need the game to invent reasons why I'd prefer playing with one group of people over another.

My preferred "sweet spot" in the power vs. stunt debate is for a mechanic that lets you perform pretty much any maneuver you can think up, with a singular, streamlined resolution step and results based on a few examples. If someone attempts a maneuver whose results are more powerful than the example stunts, apply penalties to the resolution roll. Feats and class abilities would exist that let you accomplish certain powerful stunt-like effects as more codified powers, with the benefit that the results are more reliable or more powerful than those obtained using the stunt rules alone.

Pathfinder makes a good start with their maneuver system, but I'd like to do away with the CMB and CMD, replacing them with good old-fashioned ability checks. I'd also like to encourage creativity by opening up the kind of effects that can be accomplished with a combat maneuver/stunt/whatever you want to call it, perhaps to include simple status effects or FATE-style temporary status effects that can be used for combat advantage..

 

[Starbuck_II]

I personally think tactical infinity is too vulnerable to DM bias.

Let's say the player wants to spin around in an arc with his sword and attack all the opponents around him. Sounds reasonable enough. But without rules to describe the action/power, it comes down to the DM to decide how the action is resolved. Is the attack made at a -4 penalty? A -2 penalty? No penalty? This can be tough to decide and can have a big impact on the balance of the game. And how often can the player do this? Is there a limit? Why not attack enemies in a circle arc whenever you're making an attack?

I understand how having to know how to perform a whirlwind might be iffy from a simulationist point of view, it makes for a much more concrete, efficient and reliable game, and I think that's important for such a big product as D&D. That's what I want from D&D Next.

Then make it a normal option like Fighting defensively (-4 hit) or Charge (-2 AC) were.
Anyone can perform Whirlwind maneuver, but you take a -4 penalty to hit to all attacks (attacking each opponent within range once). If you later take the feat, it is no penalty.

Really, I think all maneuvers should be base options: have feats to remove penalties. Maybe we will get lucky (Using SRD I made these):
1) Whirlwind: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach with a -3 penalty.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

2) Manyshot: As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage.
You need feat to get more than 2 arrows.

3) Shot on the Run: When using the attack action with a ranged weapon, you can move both before and after the attack (the attack has a -2 penalty), provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed.

4) Spring Attack: When using the attack action with a melee weapon (attack has -2 penalty), you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an AoO from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this if you are wearing heavy armor.
You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.

5) Cleave: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature (both have -3 penalty to hit. You can use this ability once per round.

6) Reckless Offense: When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of -4 to your Armor Class and add a +2 bonus on your melee attack roll. The bonus on attack rolls and penalty to Armor Class last until the beginning of your next turn.

My preferred "sweet spot" in the power vs. stunt debate is for a mechanic that lets you perform pretty much any maneuver you can think up, with a singular, streamlined resolution step and results based on a few examples. If someone attempts a maneuver whose results are more powerful than the example stunts, apply penalties to the resolution roll. Feats and class abilities would exist that let you accomplish certain powerful stunt-like effects as more codified powers, with the benefit that the results are more reliable or more powerful than those obtained using the stunt rules alone.

I like this idea.

 

[GreyICE]

It's funny, I read the title and thought 'false dichotomy.' Then I read the post and still thought 'false dichotomy.'

Players using their powers in innovative ways to accomplish non-traditional outcomes is where it is at.

Just not quite so much that it becomes just another power. Sure, the first time you hear about creating an enormous fishbowl with walls of force, filling it with water, and then dropping a celestial whale on someone it's awesome. When the players are using it to solve every encounter that doesn't involve flying enemies, then its an issue.

The key is that stunts should be reasonably rare and have good rewards. If they're happening from every character every round of combat, we get the Incredibles line - "If everyone is special, then... no one is!"

Powers should be more bread-and-butter, and also enable cool stunts.

 

[mips42]

Borrowed from another thread:

One of a GM's primary duties in running the game is to find ways to say 'yes' when a player tries to do a thing. If the rules don't explicitly cover what the player is trying to do, extrapolate from what you know. I've run 2e to 4e and don't remember ever having a situation that I couldn't figure out from 'RAW'. Sometimes it take some creativity, but that's okay.

If you want to give Advantage (or inspiration, or a +1 or whatever) because it's cool? Go for it. Want to give Disadvantage (or a -1 or whatever) because conditions seem to warrant it? Do it. If you want to add a pool of luck points that the characters (and monsters) can use to shape things to their advantage, do it.
The 'rules' are a starting point, not the ending point.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what the rules are, as long as all the participants agree to them and have fun.
​