Why the Encounter Powers hate? (Maneuvers = Encounter)

[Campbell]

Honestly, I place a lot of blame at WotC's feet for failing to follow some of the excellent advice found in both DMGs (especially DMG2) for constructing their own adventures. What I think it comes down to is having the wrong focus when constructing modules and this goes all the way back to the early days of 3e. WotC adventures have always been pretty wooden because they were almost always constructed to provide the entire game experience rather than a structure to fit to your individual game. It's the equivalent of reading a speech off a piece of paper verbatim. It just comes off feeling artificial. It really doesn't help that a lot of people's first exposure to 4e was Keep on the Shadowfell.

 

[SoldierBlue]

Keep on the Shadowfell....

Honestly, I place a lot of blame at WotC's feet for failing to follow some of the excellent advice found in both DMGs (especially DMG2) for constructing their own adventures. What I think it comes down to is having the wrong focus when constructing modules and this goes all the way back to the early days of 3e. WotC adventures have always been pretty wooden because they were almost always constructed to provide the entire game experience rather than a structure to fit to your individual game. It's the equivalent of reading a speech off a piece of paper verbatim. It just comes off feeling artificial. It really doesn't help that a lot of people's first exposure to 4e was Keep on the Shadowfell.

Unfortunately, I think you're on to something. Keep on the Shadowfell was our first mod, and it left a bad taste in our mouths...to say more would be outside the scope of this thread.

pemerton's right, though. It is unfair to blame play experience on a single module or simply encounter powers. A good DM should be able to rise above, and get the most out of the system.

Arguably, the playtest mod should have been something a little more sophisticated. But I'll give it top credit for its attempts at being a dynamic and responsive dungeon, in a way Shadowfell never was...

Play On, Gamer Nation!

 

[pemerton]

WotC adventures have always been pretty wooden because they were almost always constructed to provide the entire game experience rather than a structure to fit to your individual game.

That's a nice way of putting it. I suspect the view that the WotC way is easier for the new GM is not true (or, rather, that there are other, better ways of supporting the new GM) but I don't have the empirical data to really back that up.

It really doesn't help that a lot of people's first exposure to 4e was Keep on the Shadowfell.

I downloaded it for free from the WotC website when it was posted there, but have never read it through, and haven't GMed it.

That is so cool that you cited "Night's Dark Terror" - I remember that module as one that really advanced the sophistication of exactly what you and I are talking about - making D&D feel more like "Fellowship of the Ring" and less like a boardgame.

I picked that module up 2nd hand about 10 years ago, and I used it for my 4e campaign. It convereted really well!

 

[SoldierBlue]

For those looking for adventures with more of a narrative and/or responsive flow, check out Monkey God Enterprises d20 modules. They all seem to have come out in the early 2000s. I bought a stack a few months ago upon the advice of a fellow poster here on ENWorld. Probably could be converted to 4e or 5e with minimal effort...

 

[Herschel]

As a poker player, I have to tell you this is not a good metaphor. Bluffing is not that easy to pick off. Levelling and false tells make poker a much deeper game than that.

An actual good, experienced poker player is good at understanding bluffs and tells. In part it's insight, but also understanding the odds. My grandfather was amazing at this. Sometimes discerning the bluff is in the tell, sometimes it's in the odds.

In combat, certain moves require a weapon to be in a certain position to pull off. If the combatant holds the weapon a certain way, that's one thing, or if he makes a move from a different position then the move is slowed enough for recognition to occur. Same with foot position, etc.

 

[Agamon]

An actual good, experienced poker player is good at understanding bluffs and tells. In part it's insight, but also understanding the odds. My grandfather was amazing at this. Sometimes discerning the bluff is in the tell, sometimes it's in the odds.

In combat, certain moves require a weapon to be in a certain position to pull off. If the combatant holds the weapon a certain way, that's one thing, or if he makes a move from a different position then the move is slowed enough for recognition to occur. Same with foot position, etc.

And, by the same token, it requires a good, experienced combatant to see it coming.

I don't totally disagree with the reasoning, just that level should be taken into account, as should the mindlessness of the opponent.

 

[Herschel]

And, by the same token, it requires a good, experienced combatant to see it coming.

I don't totally disagree with the reasoning, just that level should be taken into account, as should the mindlessness of the opponent.

Oh, definitely. I always play the monsters to their intellect but adjusting "refresh rates" on the fly is a headache I don't think many want to mess around with and teh system doesn't deal with that level of granularity.

 

[avin]

Encounter powers have no fluff reasonable explanation.

I like my games have reasonable explanations for everything.

That way, encounter powers are horrible metagamey stuff and should be banned for D&D.

That said, IMO they work very well in game therms and add balance to 4E.

(We are running an online dungeon crawl using 4E these days and having a LOT of fun, as usual, but it's a consensus that 4E fails in providing us a more immersive and "realistic" game. A simple matter of taste)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like my games to have mechanics that work well in play. I can live with them being a little inconsistent on close inspections. I'd prefer if I can have both, but I am willing to compromise a lot to get game mechanics that work well balance-and imagination wise.

And it could very well be that a simple "fix" to the problem is: Yes, encounter powers refresh when new combattants enter the area. Against those combattants. It complicates things, which I don't like, but if you insist on it for verisimilitude, there you go.

I suppose a little more elegant solution could be that using "encounter" powers requires some prerequisite actions - something to "set up" the powers, once you have already used them. That could be applied to all classes even, so even Wizards could recover their Icy Terrain if they spend the prerequisite actions.

 

[Sadras]

Okay, well I didnt have the patience to read all 11 pages of this thread, so I dont know if this option has been brought up by someone else, but an easy simple solution to the 4E Encounter and most of the Daily Power problem was to set up a surge cost - which is the same as using Stamina mechanic.
If a player in my group wishes to re-use an Encounter power it is going to cost him a surge, the next time he does that during that Encounter it will cost him two surges... and so it increases....etc.
That way I easily allow for characters to perform the same trick but at a cost and since I use the gain 1 surge for Traveling Rests, spending of surges must be done wisely.

Dailies and specific classes have more complex mechanics in play, but the options are there for the PCs. But most importantly the mechanics support the narrative which pleases me as a DM. Should 5E introduce manuevers used once per Encounter - I'm sure the system will be flexible enough for us to design/incorporate something similar if no add-on module is available.