Tightening the Connection between Fiction and Powers Mechanics

[KidSnide]

Two of the recurring criticisms of 4e are that (1) the in-game fiction is only loosely tied to the mechanics and (2) all the classes are too similar because powers are insufficiently differentiated and the at-will/encounter/daily/utility power structure is shared by all of the initial classes. Although the post-Essentials design has shown how classes can be better differentiated, there is at least some merit to the idea that powers are too similar. One response is to return to a 3.x model of distinct spells and class abilities, but this would have the considerable cost of losing the consistent format and presentation that powers provide.

I posit that 4e-style power mechanics can be more tightly tied to the in-game fiction and that powers can be better differentiated by adding back in some carefully chosen idiosyncrasies to the powers.

In some cases, well-chosen keywords could be added into the power descriptions. For example, the Disruptable keyword could be added to, for example, most arcane daily powers. Such powers would provoke opportunity attacks and a hit during the use of that power would cause it to fail. A Verbal keyword could require speaking out loud -- preventing use of the power if gagged or silenced and negating stealth (even if it's a utility power). Other powers could require free use of hands. Alternatively, available magic (or mundane) items could be relevant. For example, psionic powers might be characterized by being neither disruptable nor requiring verbal actions, but a lead-lined helm might provide protection (at the cost of mobility/sensing?) against these powers?

The idea is to provide a better mechanical hook to the in-game fiction. Combined with a more standardized list of powers, players would have a better idea of how the rules work based on the in-game fiction in a way where fictional weakness are more exploitable. One of my favorite moments in 2e was when a 7th level PC thief was confronted by an 18th level NPC wizard who found the thief in his basement. A very (rules-loose) grappling contest followed, with the wizard being dispatched by being rolled onto his own Symbol of Death. I don't think all wizards should be easily made useless, but it would be nice if being gagged or grappled was a more serious restriction for an arcane caster than some other character.

Obviously, this would add complexity to the game, but I think it would fit well into the "advanced" part of a basic/expert/advanced sequence. Also, I'm not proposing any specific rules (the examples are just that -- examples), just presenting an approach to marrying a consistent powers presentation to mechanics that emphasize the in-game fiction more strongly than existing 4e.

Thoughts?

-KS

 

[I'm A Banana]

I posit that 4e-style power mechanics can be more tightly tied to the in-game fiction and that powers can be better differentiated by adding back in some carefully chosen idiosyncrasies to the powers.

I agree!

I'm leery of re-introducing components, though. They didn't seem to add much to the feel of playing a spellcaster, aside from a few extra ways to harass them. I'm also a bit against adding in yet more interruptions and cascading attacks, though I don't mind arcane powers being "risky" (most already are "disruptable": they are ranged or area attacks, which provoke when used in melee).

I do like the idea of linking mechanics to power source a bit more securely so...

• Martial Power: Martial Power doesn't have "daily" abilities. Martial powers are reliable, and they are consistent, but they lack the spike damage.
• Arcane Power: Arcane Power doesn't have "at-will" abilities. Arcane power is very significant, but less dependable, forcing arcane characters to use caution when expending their few spells.
• Divine Power: Divine Power works in a semi-random fashion. The exact powers you have at your disposal may change each day (or each encounter, or each round), and you can "earn" more mighty powers with certain activities. For instance, if you worship the sun god, engaging your enemies at high noon may give your powers more of a boost than engaging them in the middle of the night.
• Psionic Power: Psionic power works on a "mana pool" mechanic, where you can use an at-will, encounter, or daily "version" of a power, depending on how many PPs you want to invest in its use. Overall, psionics are consistent with other classes, but they can "go nova" more effectively. Of course, if they do, they are at reduced power (at-will abilities are effectively free).
• Primal Power: Primal power affects what is already present. It can't call fire or lightning out of nothing, but it can direct the fire or lightning that is already present to your own will. Primal effects are transmutations and alterations, subtly affecting the world around them. Primal effects depend on external conditions: using storm powers with heavy cloud cover is more effective than using sun powers during the same weather.
• Shadow Power: Shadow power is a corruption of another power source, and works much like a dark reflection of that power source. Martial shadow abilities may be more chaotic and extreme. Arcane shadow abilities may be more consistent, a slow creep of power. Divine shadow abilities may give a character more control over their powers, while psionic shadow abilities offer a great well of power, at a high price. Primal shadow abilities corrput the world, sapping life and essence from it.

Anyway, I think it's a good goal to add back into the game some of the differences in powers and classes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmm, i vote thumbs up for the concept, but i disagree with some of your ideas...
especially the divine source rubs me te wrong way...

what about divine having no dailies, but even higher quality quest spells:
You pray for them, when you go onto a quest, and you can unlash the divine power only once... (and maybe after completing the quest, you gain some little benefit for your next quest)

edit: and I definitively agree on adding verbal and somatic components back in... material components and extraordinary time will still be used only by rituals. Maybe some spells could be enhanced by adding bat guano and sulfur...

 

[KidSnide]

I agree that material components shouldn't be a regular part of magic-based powers. However, I could see a pool of alchemical powers (like some artificer powers) that would require access to alchemical supplies in order to use.

As far as Disruptable powers are concerned, it's correct that there are currently powers that trigger opportunity attacks, but there aren't really powers that you can lose (or would misfire) if you're hit. I always thought of the delicate nature of arcane magic to be part of its schtick. If certain arcane powers (mostly Dailies, I imagine) were tactical difficult to pull off, then that would justify making them a little more effective. That would better reflect the "dangerous but fragile" wizard that -- at least to me -- is an iconic part of D&D that has been toned down in 4e.

As far as Quest powers are concerned, I could see divine characters receiving powers that can be used less often than Daily, presumably once per level (or per 10 encounters). I would be wary of any power that requires that effectively requires the GM to write a special adventure every time it is used.

-KS

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as Disruptable powers are concerned, it's correct that there are currently powers that trigger opportunity attacks, but there aren't really powers that you can lose (or would misfire) if you're hit

Good point! I kind of like the feel of a power that you can't use if you've taken damage recently. Perhaps Arcane daily powers additionally have a prerequisite of you not having been damaged since your last turn (or somesuch), meaning an OA would disrupt them.

 

[The Human Target]

This is the exact spike in complexity I don't want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Two of the recurring criticisms of 4e are that (1) the in-game fiction is only loosely tied to the mechanics and (2) all the classes are too similar because powers are insufficiently differentiated and the at-will/encounter/daily/utility power structure is shared by all of the initial classes.

'recurring' and 'valid' are two very different things. It /is/ true that 'fiction' or 'fluff' is at most, losely tied to mechanics. In the case of powers, it's explicitly divorced from mechanics. The player is free to change the fluff of his powers, the mechanics stay the same. That's a pretty complete disconnect. And, it makes it much easier to write the rules of powers clearly, balance powers, /and/ it makes it much easier for players to differentiate thier characters through concept and description, prettymuch refuting the second point, /if/ that point even needed further refuting.

But, point 2 is flatly false. There's nothing about a common structure that makes classes too similar in function or in concept. It just makes them too not 3e. Too balanced. Too consistent. Too easy to learn. Too hard to abuse.

That said, there is a valid side to the complaints, it just doesn't mean what the complainers want it to mean (that 4e sux and we must all play Pathfinder).

The kernel of truth is that there is some degree of redundancy and bloat among 4e powers. Too many powers within a given source are just re-named versions of another class's power. To many Paragon and Epic tier powers are just upgraded versions of heroic powers with different names, meant to be swapped out. The need for a hundred or so powers to flesh out a class makes creating new classes very difficult and leads to enormous power-bloat, which means more redundant powers and also makes each power potentially less memorable.

Where to go with that, I'm not sure. I'd think fewer classes, powers grouped by source, and role support taken out of powers and put into class features. :shrug:

Although the post-Essentials design has shown how classes can be better differentiated, there is at least some merit to the idea that powers are too similar.

Some essentials classes are differentiated by arbitrary mechanical changes, but at the same time, they're redundant as the just re-tread the same conceptual ground. The only difference between a Fighter(Knight) and Guardian Fighter is that the Knight uses less consistent, balanced, versatile, and interesting mechanics to blandly fill the same role using the same concept. Differentiating classes by making some of them crap /is/ differentiating them 'better,' though, I can't argue with that.

I posit that 4e-style power mechanics can be more tightly tied to the in-game fiction and that powers can be better differentiated by adding back in some carefully chosen idiosyncrasies to the powers.

So, they're too simple?

Anyway, aside from attacking the complainers...

In some cases, well-chosen keywords could be added into the power descriptions. For example, the Disruptable keyword could be added to, for example, most arcane daily powers. Such powers would provoke opportunity attacks and a hit during the use of that power would cause it to fail.

OK, that has potential. Any power that provokes an OA is already interrupted, but unless the OA somehow debilitates the user, is still resolved. Making some powers have a drawback that a hit on an OA causes them to fail would not be mechanically difficult to implement, and probably wouldn't change game play a great deal - most players are reluctant to provoke OAs, afterall.

But, one question would be whether such powers would deserve to be 'compensated' for that vulnerability, and whether that would be justified. On the surface, it would seem like this just adds some flavor, but at a cost in effectiveness that should be compensated.

If certain arcane powers (mostly Dailies, I imagine) were tactical difficult to pull off, then that would justify making them a little more effective. That would better reflect the "dangerous but fragile" wizard that -- at least to me -- is an iconic part of D&D that has been toned down in 4e.

The power is less likely to go off, it should be a little better when it does, right?

Well, maybe. There are a lot of ways to avoid OAs - simple shift 1 and attack, sticking close to a defender, high AC (most OAs are vs AC), specific bonuses vs OAs - or to negate them completely - total concealment, Scintillant Cloth Armor, Staff Expertise, etc. If a class were marked by the very common or ubiquitous apearance of Disruptable in it's powers, it would naturally gravitate towards the specific choices that negate OAs. The 'more fragile' Mage might start with Staff Mastery with surprising regularity... until the PC gets the right OA-negating armor, then he retrains it. That would have the result of differentiating a class, at the expense of making members of that class less unique. And, players would be running around with 'a little more effective' spells in compensation for a downside they've negated.

Prettymuch the story of the classic 'fragile but dangerous' D&D wizard from the beginnig. The magic-user had limitations and extra potency heaped on his spells. With a little (often very little) ingenuity, the limitations were negated, and the extra potency remained. As editions rolled out, the limitations on spells decreased while their power didn't, until 3.x, when casters ruled the roost. 4e finally got the right idea and removed all of the limitations and most of the extra power (the Wizard, for instance, /still/ has more-powerful-powers by way of role support).

A Verbal keyword could require speaking out loud -- preventing use of the power if gagged or silenced and negating stealth (even if it's a utility power). Other powers could require free use of hands.

Somatic and Verbal components. Those are familiar from past eds, yes.

Alternatively, available magic (or mundane) items could be relevant. For example, psionic powers might be characterized by being neither disruptable nor requiring verbal actions, but a lead-lined helm might provide protection (at the cost of mobility/sensing?) against these powers?

Maybe not the greatest example. You either make the penalties for the tinfoil hat sufficient that nobody bothers with it, and the limitation is meaningless (really, how many monsters wear helmets, anyway), or you don't, and they're all the rage. In trying to introduce flavor, all you introduce is imbalance. Psionics is prettymuch a hopeless case, anyway, the only ways it differes from Arcane in flavor are ways that make it feel like science-fiction.

The idea is to provide a better mechanical hook to the in-game fiction.

A 'better' mechanical hook into the fiction goes both ways. It means the fiction can start messing with the mechanics, blowing game balance out the window, and it means that each mechanic becomes more narrowly useful for building to concept. With fluff and mechanics working more or less independently, one class can represent a lot of character concepts, the more tightly you tie them together, the less imagination you need to see how the class represents the set of concepts it can model, but the fewer such concepts it's suitable for.

I don't think all wizards should be easily made useless, but it would be nice if being gagged or grappled was a more serious restriction for an arcane caster than some other character.

Would it really be 'nice?' I mean, if you're gagged, you're going to just remove the gag unless you hands are tied behind your back or chained to a wall, anyway, and you can't wield a weapon in such a case, either. So, it'd almost never make a difference, but, when it did, it'd completely hose a character. What's nice about that?

Obviously, this would add complexity to the game, but I think it would fit well into the "advanced" part of a basic/expert/advanced sequence. Also, I'm not proposing any specific rules (the examples are just that -- examples), just presenting an approach to marrying a consistent powers presentation to mechanics that emphasize the in-game fiction more strongly than existing 4e.

Thoughts?

I really think the game has been down that road before - far, far down that road, thoroughly exploring all the territory it leads to - and it wasn't a nice place to visit, let alone live. I know divorcing fluff from mechanics seems shockingly new to D&Ders (though those of us who played champions have been happilly doing so since the early 80s), but it really does work very well, once you start working with it (having fun changing the descriptions of your powers to suit character concept and situation, instead of always trying to fine-tune mechanics).

 

[KidSnide]

This is the exact spike in complexity I don't want.

I get this. For some games, this type of detail is what's missing to connect the rules to the fiction. For others, it's unnecessary complexity. I see this kind of detail as part of a complexity spectrum.

For example, you could image that:

In Basic D&D, the levels only go to 10, the classes are very simple (albeit with generous bonuses), there are no skills (only ability checks), no feats, the powers have none of these details, OAs are a class ability for defenders, and the monsters are very simple.

In Expert D&D, the levels go to 20 (or maybe all the way up), classes are varied in complexity (Essentials-style), there are one or two resource pools that fill the skills/feats role, abilities like Charge and OAs are available with a single "Combat Training" feat, and powers and monsters are at current 4e complexity. DM advice for Expert D&D would lean more towards fast-action style.

In Advanced D&D, the levels go all the way up, all of the classes have fully complicated builds (like the PH1 fighter), the new powers and rituals include this level of complexity/fictional-connection. There could also be optional rule modules for things like mass combat and kingdom management, as well as background/crafts. DM advice for Advanced D&D would be targeted at both a simulationist crowd and a tactical combat crowd (which would obviously overlap some of the time).

-KS

 

[the Jester]

Two of the recurring criticisms of 4e are that (1) the in-game fiction is only loosely tied to the mechanics and (2) all the classes are too similar because powers are insufficiently differentiated and the at-will/encounter/daily/utility power structure is shared by all of the initial classes...

These are two valid complaints, but I think your guys' proposals go too far in regressing towards the bad points of the old days. For instance:

Arcane Power: Arcane Power doesn't have "at-will" abilities.

IMHO this is terrible. One of the very best things about 4e is that wizards never run out of spells. There's no good reason to roll it back, especially in a way that once again strongly promotes a ten-minute adventuring day and class imbalance. No thank you.

That said, the basic idea of differentiating power sources more and adding flavor to powers is a good one, but not if it has a significant cost in terms of mechanical complexity, option bloat or increased difficulty in learning the game. If power source keywords had more meaning, that would be a start. I mean, they don't really do anything in the game. When was the last time it mattered if a power was divine or arcane? I'll tell you when- 3e.

This is the exact spike in complexity I don't want.

I agree with this, all the "advanced" talk aside. There are much much better ways to make additional complexity pay off, to my mine. And there are many areas where option bloat could be substantially reduced- there's no real reason that there can't be some basic powers shared by multiple classes, for instance, especially when right now some powers' only real difference is the class name on them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMHO this is terrible. One of the very best things about 4e is that wizards never run out of spells. There's no good reason to roll it back, especially in a way that once again strongly promotes a ten-minute adventuring day and class imbalance. No thank you.

Psionics, under my rubric above, would have a similar problem.

I don't know about class imbalance (if they can get rid of martial dailies, they can probably get rid of arcane at-wills without affecting balance too much), but it is a concern that the psychology will be "go nova, then go home."

Rather than get too concerned, however, I see that as an additional area to improve the game: ensuring that there is a heavy cost to "going home."

Certainly there's a lot of people who miss the dramatic gameplay swing of a spellcaster who can decimate everything in one big explosion, but then has to rely on crossbows and quarterstaffs otherwise. Not everyone does, of course, but I think it's a worthy goal to try to add some of that back. Arcanists still keep Encounter powers under that rubric, so they still have "weaker" powers they can rely on once per encounter. Because they lack at-wills, these might even be more numerous or powerful than standard encounter powers (much like how martial at-wills and encounters would be stronger, since they lack dailies).