Why the Encounter Powers hate? (Maneuvers = Encounter)

[Estlor]

Made the effort to read the entire thread. It seems like there are two intertwined topics going on here.

1. Per Encounter abilities in general and
2. Per Encounter abilities as the specifically apply to "martial" characters.

I'll muse on the second point first.

While the existence of encounter and daily martial powers never bothered me or my acceptance of the 4e rules, I would prefer if something was borrowed from 4e for the Fighter specifically and other primarily weapon-based classes in general it would be the idea of Stances. I would be more in favor of offering the DDN Fighter a selection of at-will stances that grant them small bonuses and can be assumed as a no action (or part of their action) than daily or encounter ones given the current scope of the rules. That gives the Fighter's player another decision point at the table without significantly boostinig the already potent power level of the playtest Fighter.

Of course, I'm also in favor of building some sort of passive benefit based on the type of weapon wielded and armor worn into the Fighter to recapture some of the BECMI/1e Fighter's benefit of being able to use any weapon and any armor that has eroded in 3rd and 4th edition, but that's not pertinent to the discussion.

Now, as to Encounter abilities in the larger sense, I don't see any reason why DDN needs to limit itself solely to things PCs can do all the time and things they can only do a few times each day. But is it absolutely necessary to specify that something can only be used 1/encounter and, if not used, it's lost? What if, instead, you got things that could be used, say, 4-6 times a day? That's basically 1/encounter, but it allows the PC/party the opportunity to decide to use it several times in an encounter in exchange for not having it in another or saving it up for the "boss fight" should they choose.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I



I would like to enlighten to those who cannot understand the reason behind why encounter powers can only be used 'once'. You see, encounter powers are like 'tricks up your sleeve'. When you use it once to a single enemy, that enemy will remember that trick again, so it will not work the second time most likely. That's why you have to use a new 'trick up your sleeve' on him. Same as encounter powers.


(p.s.s. I don't hate 3.5. I still play it. although most of my games are 4e.
But i think that the maneuvers or encounter powers should go to the warrior classes like in the Book of Nine Swords. They were intended for warriors only.

I understand this explanation, but it doesn't work for me for two reasons: first I still find it unrealistic since it fails to explain why you can't use on a different opponent and I still see no reason why you shouldn't at least be able to attempt the same trick over and over again (amd just coming from a martial arts background my experience is "tricks" are more about finding the opportunity to land the attack). So for me it is not a very good simulation of fighting, the explaition works for some cases but falls short for many others Second I just don't like resource management for fighters.

That said, if others like that, I see nothing wrong with an entirely optional encounter power module. There is clearly an appetite for it. But I think encounter powers tend to be something people either really like or really hate.

 

[pemerton]

is it absolutely necessary to specify that something can only be used 1/encounter and, if not used, it's lost? What if, instead, you got things that could be used, say, 4-6 times a day? That's basically 1/encounter, but it allows the PC/party the opportunity to decide to use it several times in an encounter in exchange for not having it in another or saving it up for the "boss fight" should they choose.

Encounter powers limit both nova-ing and spamming. Whereas X/day doesn't limit either.

That's not an objection to X/day. It's just to point out that it has different implications from encounter powers, including making it harder to balance PC effectiveness.

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.

My worry about recharging is that it can lead to spamming. Putting in a surge cost is certainly going to reduce that!

But you're then open to complaints from those who don't like encounter powers that it makes no sense that my second use of the same power costs a surge, whereas my first use of a different power (the second overall for the combat) doesn't.

This is why, in my own case, I just prefer to go straight to the metagame rationale for encounter powers.

 

[Sadras]

But you're then open to complaints from those who don't like encounter powers that it makes no sense that my second use of the same power costs a surge, whereas my first use of a different power (the second overall for the combat) doesn't.

I know, there is that blatant weakness. Perhaps the smarter move is to leave things as they were - simpler. We will see how this house-ruling experiment plays out over the next few sessions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I did not get this at all. I liked the reworking of the Cleric & Wizard to give them a stronger flavour but the one dimeinsional martial classes left me cold.

I share pemerton's experience of 4e as a player.

On both these, me too. Or more accurately I find even with just at wills different characters to be very different in play.

The reworked fighter leaves me cold and I think I'd be bored by a reworked ranger - but I do want to play a thief at some point. But the reworked fighter is not for me. It's for the player at the table who just wants to say "I hit it" and doesn't have a kinaesthetic tactical mind. Before Essentials he was struggling - but he loves the new classes because they don't make him faff around. Classes that are for people other than me aren't a bad thing.

I like 4e a lot but I do not feel encounter powers give options other than superficially. Each encounter power is significantly more potent than an at will so you are going to use it sometime in each fight, the question is when.

Depends on your class and build. For instance my last wizard had a very useful encounter power that did no damage. It really upset the bad guys when it was useful (pull 3 + slow in burst 3) but there were a number of fights it just wasn't useful in. And my encounter attack power of Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation was very useful in the right place - but with two of the melee PCs having cold resistance, I could risk friendly fire with an Enlarged Freezing Burst in the way I couldn't with Orbmaster's. (And then there was Storm Pillar as my other At Will).

This applies less to some characters who have more situational powers like rogues who get a lot of damage from sneak attack & they can use encounter powers to do things they ony need occasionally like sliding enemies around.

Yup. Or, as I said, Wizards.

I think that the BoNS and 4th Ed are great for anime style campaigns, that is in no way a bad thing (I want to run a D&D campaign, anime style, where the players should picture the campaign like anime), but I do not think all campaigns should encompass that.

That's the way I have always approached D&D (since, well...now I feel old...), you can do your Sword & Sorcery, LotR, CoC, Anime, whatever tickles the campaign's fancy.

And with all due respect, 4e destroys earlier editions for both Sword and Sorcery and LotR (and most of the rest of Appendix N). You don't need wizard and cleric to interact with about half the rules or to heal in decent time. Legolas can be Legolas, martial leaders lead and inspire, and you can actually play The Grey Mouser (thief with ritual casting).

 

[pemerton]

4e destroys earlier editions for both Sword and Sorcery and LotR (and most of the rest of Appendix N). You don't need wizard and cleric to interact with about half the rules or to heal in decent time. Legolas can be Legolas, martial leaders lead and inspire, and you can actually play The Grey Mouser (thief with ritual casting).

For something LotR-ish, I might start at 1st level (hobbits) or mid-heroic (Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli) and then run the campaign to finish at low-to-mid paragon - the PCs having firmly established their place in the world, and achieved their worldly destinies.

I personally can't imagine running LotR in earlier editions of D&D without a lot of GM fiating of action resolution.

 

[billd91]

I personally can't imagine running LotR in earlier editions of D&D without a lot of GM fiating of action resolution.

For 1st and 2nd edition, that's a no-brainer. A lot of action is resolved by DM fiat. Personally, I'm content with that. It can be really liberating.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I personally can't imagine running LotR in earlier editions of D&D without a lot of GM fiating of action resolution.

Why would action resolution need GM fiat in pre-4th Ed?

1/2nd Ed are idyllic for a LotR campaign (I just limited classes).

I have found 4th Ed is great for anime style campaigns, which are equally fun and credible.

 

[pemerton]

Why would action resolution need GM fiat in pre-4th Ed?

There are no action resolution methods in pre-4e D&D for inpsiration (a fairly big part of LotR), for the wooing of elf-maids (another fairly big part of LotR), or for the burden of time and history.

Also, the combat resolution tends to default to a high level of hp loss, and hence a need for magical healing. So the transition from the Fellowship to The Two Towers would be tricky - after fighting all those orcs Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would be down hp, and hence less than fully combat capable, when they set off in pursuit of the hobbits and are confronted by the Riders. Whereas in 4e the lost hp would have been recovered after a short rest, and they would be at (near) full strength in Rohan.

I think there are other more general features of pre-4e action resolution that would get in the way, too, like a tendency to focus on the minutiae of time passing and resource management.[/QUOTE]

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) There are no action resolution methods in pre-4e D&D for inpsiration

2) for the wooing of elf-maids

1) And in 4th Ed those are?

2) Why would you need a mechanic to woo?