Why the Encounter Powers hate? (Maneuvers = Encounter)

[Gold Roger]

Unlike other players, I've actually understood the concept of AEDU from the start. The logic behind it when it was released. Why some fighting techniques can be pulled off only once per fight, or once per day. It all boils down to the 'meta' energy inside a character's body since it taxes them, hence short rests.

I think you might be a bit to hung up on the understanding part. It can be and will be taken as implication that all who don't agree with the design just don't understand it. Which comes out a bit insulting. I'd rather we'd avoid that, AEDU debates are heated enough as it is.

I was a huge fan of the concept when 4 came out, I would say I "understood it from the start". However, I found it not very fulfilling in the end. I don't think it should burn in hell, but I can see why many would rather avoid it.

 

[Ellington]

I love the idea behind encounter powers, but not the way they're implemented in 4E. If there was some sort of system that made sense outside a design perspective, I'd be all for them.

I'd like to have some sort of high power moves for martial characters that would leave them at a mild fatigue after performing them. The fatigue would prevent characters from performing said moves, but the fatigue could be removed by taking a short rest. This would limit the usage of encounter moves to something understandable (physical stamina) instead of something that makes sense when designing and balancing play (an encounter). As players grow in levels and constitution, they might be able to perform more of these moves before needing a short rest, but there wont be a restriction of "once per fight" for individual moves, e.g you should be able to use move A thrice, or move A, B and C, before having to rest.

I dunno. It's probably been suggested time and time again, but this is my preferred way of handling encounter powers.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Just to be clear to those who still thinks that encounter powers are not good.

Encounter Powers are good, BUT not for all classes. This boils down to variety in gameplay. Vancian, aedu, point system, etc.

Many people in my group see encounter powers as an artificially contrived kludge of a mechanic. It simplifies things from a game management perspective but in terms of representing the "game reality" we enjoy, it has a lot of shortfalls. That it works for you is cool and more power to you. However, it is most likely not ideal to preach the simplistic "trick up the sleeve" conceit as a solution as it does not work from numerous perspectives. Let's look at a couple:

***The Elven Accuracy encounter ability. This has nothing to do with the enemy and is more a narrative device for the Elf to have that edge when he needs it. There is no trick the elf is performing here except cold stone personal skill. In general the trick up the sleeve action does not work with personal actions like this and others such as a Deva's Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes. The fatigue explanation does not work either. It is a game device to allow a character to do something special but that you cannot afford in terms of playability to have spammed constantly.

***It also does not work for actions that affect your allies. Surely their knowledge of the trick up the sleeve should be an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. The Warlord's Inspiring Word, Aid the Injured or Knight's Move are some of many that fall into this category.

***However, most damning of all IS the trick up the sleeve. Let's look at Dazing Strike. Why can this only be attempted once per encounter? Why can't a character try it again against the same targat? Shouldn't it have a reduced chance of working rather than a "NO, you cannot attempt this again" thing? However, what about the new target who never saw the first Dazing Strike? Shouldn't it work perfectly fine on him? But once again, my character cannot even mechanically attempt it. From this perspective, encounter powers do not make sense and do not fit with how most of our group enjoys playing.

And so while these superficial explanations "can" make sense in certain circumstances (but certainly not all or even most), for players who prefer a more believable set of mechanics, these types of explanations such as fatigue, trick up the sleeve, in the moment etc. are more a band-aid for an overly simplistic mechanic.

The point is that there are two sides to this. If I put my tactical-gamer hat on, encounter powers are an elegant way of restricting resources without the accounting. If I put my believability-gamer hat on, they are are a mechanic that does a poor job of representing many of the actions that utilize this mechanic. They really suit and empower a certain style of play (Pemerton on these boards is brilliant in this regard), and they are overly-simplistic and unrepresentative for a different style of play. This is why you won't see encounter powers in the core (or at least shouldn't) but you most certainly will see them as an extra option that can be embraced or shunned as suits.

The thing here is that for D&D to sit under the one tent, it has to carefully decide what is common for all players, and what is best served as an option. Trying to tell players that an option "is really really good and this is why" is a great way of getting all the players who don't like that option upset if such things find their way into the core. Encounter powers should certainly be in this optional bucket; too divisive otherwise.

explanation for 5 minute resting: you really don't rest in the real sense of 'resting'. just another way to say that 'you need 5 minute interval for the next encounter'. in this case, most likely, you will be facing new enemies, enemies who haven't seen your 'trick up your sleeve' encounter power.

How does this adequately explain a new target for the same encounter power who didn't see it the first time? How does it explain not even being able to attempt it on the same target?

Unlike other players, I've actually understood the concept of AEDU from the start. The logic behind it when it was released. Why some fighting techniques can be pulled off only once per fight, or once per day. It all boils down to the 'meta' energy inside a character's body since it taxes them, hence short rests.

It is most likely best not to make assumptions as in this quote. The vast majority of players are highly intelligent and highly conversant with not only the 4e ruleset but many, many others. Sometimes we not only need to accept that people play our game differently to us, we need to embrace it! Enjoy the diversity and the different opinions, ideas and ways of doing things. Some things will be great for some and not so good for others.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Blood & Bones]

Encounter abilities from a Design Perspective

At-will abilities vs. Daily abilities leaves a wide swath of opportunity from a design perspective. Yes - it's a gamest to see some powers or abilities as "Encounter" or "Scene" based, but if you think about your favorite movies, some of the things that the coolest characters do, they do only once or twice in the whole movie. These are encounter/scene powers.

I admit that some encounter powers didn't make a heck of a lot of sense, and that other encounter powers should have graduated to at-will powers after a few levels (and some daily powers to encounter powers, for that matter), but the idea is still solid. It's an ability that you have the chance to use maybe once per an encounter, that showed off how cool your character really is...

I've designed a few RPG games (some finished, others languishing) and I see the value in that middle ground. If you design your game to be Cinematic (movie-like) it makes perfect sense. Am I off base here?

 

[Psion]

Kind of like...

Hit points
Experience points
Levels
Class
Ability scores

Hit points always sort of bothered me, but I dealt with their foibles (as mitigated by house rules) because the fundamental system was simple and worked well.

I stopped using XP.

Level was never really directly sensible in the game without a heaping spoon of genre(book?) savvyness by the PCs, so never bothered me.

Classes, when well designed (i.e., logically associated skill sets) make sense and often help verisimilitude.

Ability scores are also not directly sensible in games.

So, to me, the only thing that comes close to hindering my immersion to the same level as "per x" abilities is hit points, and they get a pass only because of simple utility.

That being said, I've always thought a "stamina" system would make such abilities more palatable.

I'd have an easier time buying stamina as an explanation if they were all on a pool instead of per power.

I find it slightly more palatable thinking of them as "opportunity" action that the player chooses instead of dices for. Still, I more strongly prefer getting martial types away from these sorts of pools and stepping away from the idea of managing everyone on the same endurance track.

 

[beej]

Ah! The Book of 9 Swords comparison. Incidentally, I mused on the similarities of B9S martial maneuvers and 4E Encounter Powers in my blog. </plug>

In a nutshell: Yes, there are similarities. But one thing that was lost in the transition from B9S to 4E was the martial adept's ability to regain his maneuvers in the middle of combat:

Crusaders never ran out, constantly inspired as they were by the (divine?) ideals they aspired to. Warblades regained their confidence and will to perform complicated sword strikes by spending a turn to show off. Swordmages, whose maneuvers were the most intricate (and ki consuming?) among the three, need to spend a full round of contemplation just to remember the nuances and stamina to repeat one move.

B9S had split the fan base even then, but at least the warblades didn't forget how to do their tricks. (I couldn't say the same to the fighter who took the martial study feat, though. )

We see this with the DDNext rogue, in a way: Hide to set-up Sneak Attack, deal extra damage on the next round, and then hide again to "recharge" the power.

Somehow, 4E turned that into its "fire and forget" system, which probably felt magic-y to some. The slayer's Power Strike, on the other hand, felt closer to being martial IMO with its increasing effectiveness and uses per day. But in either case, I wasn't one to complain. Although for 5E core, I would like to see Power Strike at least with modules to replace it with other maneuvers.

 

[Zaphling]

Many people in my group see encounter powers as an artificially contrived kludge of a mechanic. It simplifies things from a game management perspective but in terms of representing the "game reality" we enjoy, it has a lot of shortfalls. That it works for you is cool and more power to you. However, it is most likely not ideal to preach the simplistic "trick up the sleeve" conceit as a solution as it does not work from numerous perspectives. Let's look at a couple:

***The Elven Accuracy encounter ability. This has nothing to do with the enemy and is more a narrative device for the Elf to have that edge when he needs it. There is no trick the elf is performing here except cold stone personal skill. In general the trick up the sleeve action does not work with personal actions like this and others such as a Deva's Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes. The fatigue explanation does not work either. It is a game device to allow a character to do something special but that you cannot afford in terms of playability to have spammed constantly.

***It also does not work for actions that affect your allies. Surely their knowledge of the trick up the sleeve should be an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. The Warlord's Inspiring Word, Aid the Injured or Knight's Move are some of many that fall into this category.

***However, most damning of all IS the trick up the sleeve. Let's look at Dazing Strike. Why can this only be attempted once per encounter? Why can't a character try it again against the same targat? Shouldn't it have a reduced chance of working rather than a "NO, you cannot attempt this again" thing? However, what about the new target who never saw the first Dazing Strike? Shouldn't it work perfectly fine on him? But once again, my character cannot even mechanically attempt it. From this perspective, encounter powers do not make sense and do not fit with how most of our group enjoys playing.

And so while these superficial explanations "can" make sense in certain circumstances (but certainly not all or even most), for players who prefer a more believable set of mechanics, these types of explanations such as fatigue, trick up the sleeve, in the moment etc. are more a band-aid for an overly simplistic mechanic.

The point is that there are two sides to this. If I put my tactical-gamer hat on, encounter powers are an elegant way of restricting resources without the accounting. If I put my believability-gamer hat on, they are are a mechanic that does a poor job of representing many of the actions that utilize this mechanic. They really suit and empower a certain style of play (Pemerton on these boards is brilliant in this regard), and they are overly-simplistic and unrepresentative for a different style of play. This is why you won't see encounter powers in the core (or at least shouldn't) but you most certainly will see them as an extra option that can be embraced or shunned as suits.

The thing here is that for D&D to sit under the one tent, it has to carefully decide what is common for all players, and what is best served as an option. Trying to tell players that an option "is really really good and this is why" is a great way of getting all the players who don't like that option upset if such things find their way into the core. Encounter powers should certainly be in this optional bucket; too divisive otherwise.

How does this adequately explain a new target for the same encounter power who didn't see it the first time? How does it explain not even being able to attempt it on the same target?

It is most likely best not to make assumptions as in this quote. The vast majority of players are highly intelligent and highly conversant with not only the 4e ruleset but many, many others. Sometimes we not only need to accept that people play our game differently to us, we need to embrace it! Enjoy the diversity and the different opinions, ideas and ways of doing things. Some things will be great for some and not so good for others.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I did not intend for my phrase in a negative connotation, but just forget that phrase. Anyhow, I'm not trying to attack people here. I just got the words wrong. hehe.

Back to the discussion, I do agree with your points and your well-thought discussion. It's just that the reason I gave those explanations and rationale behind the logic of encounter powers, or the so-so logic is to pacify the 'encounter power hatred'.

At least, if some really hate it because it cannot do the 'real world' simulations like 3.5, it will be lessened by my explanation. That was my goal behind the post.

 

[SoldierBlue]

Focus on adventures, not encounters...

My problem is broader (and perhaps beyond the scope of this thread). 3.5 made the encounter the default with its EL system, but 4e took it to extremes, and the medium became the message. I know this wasn't supposed to happen (or maybe it was), but it did - the system encouraged an encounter-after-encounter (actually room-after-room, most of the time) paradigm, with little dynamic interaction between encounters (rooms).

The PCs kill the bad guys; the GM cleans the battlemat; everyone regains their encounter powers; the party moves on to the next room.

Let's get back to the adventure (a living, breathing, dynamic adventure) and avoid the encounter (although admit it will appear as an occasional evil...).

If Han and Luke were using 4e, they could have cleared the Death Star one room at a time...

But, as always, Play What You Want, Gamer Nation!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I did not intend for my phrase in a negative connotation, but just forget that phrase. Anyhow, I'm not trying to attack people here. I just got the words wrong. hehe.

It's all cool.

Back to the discussion, I do agree with your points and your well-thought discussion. It's just that the reason I gave those explanations and rationale behind the logic of encounter powers, or the so-so logic is to pacify the 'encounter power hatred'.

At least, if some really hate it because it cannot do the 'real world' simulations like 3.5, it will be lessened by my explanation. That was my goal behind the post.

An admiral goal. You have to remember that 3.x has its fair share of mechanics not representing believable stuff too; its certainly shouldn't be one versus the other in any respect. Again, accepting that some players simply don't like mechanics intruding upon the believable actions and freedom of their character is just as important as accepting that other players love the freedom encounter powers provide to create the narrative they envisage, while others love the elegant simplicity of moderating character resources. None of these views or styles is doing it wrong. The challenge is for the core rules to embrace all of these players through blending a stable neutral core with options-a-plenty (of which encounter powers and maneuvers are sure to be one).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[bert1000]

Although I know the "that trick only works once on an enemy" rationale it was never the most compelling to me. As other have pointed out, there are too many ways that can break down.

I am fine with martial encounter abilities, though. The rationale that works for me is that martial encounter abilities are a game mechanic that gives players some agency on the in-game fiction to dictate when the circumstances are "just right" to pull off (or attempt to pull off) a difficult combat move. Since combat is pretty abstract in D&D anyway this doesn't bother me. I see a combat turn like one of the older D&D editions described it -- a turn where a character makes a melee attack assumes a bunch of feinting, looking for openings, footwork, etc.

So, the encounter power just gives the player some choice of when the circumstances are "just right" to pull off that maneuver. For encounter powers the circumstances can happen at an average frequency of once an encounter (for a wide variety of reasons). For a Daily Martial Power, the circumstances only align once a day. It's not because there is some physical limitation to pulling off that maneuver more than once a day or the character "forgets" how to do it, it's just that these are really hard (but powerful) moves that require a combination of high level of skill and certain circumstances (e.g., enemy mentality, terrain, luck) to align to pull off. You can assume that the character is trying to pull off the encounter maneuvers and daily maneuvers more than once per encounter and once per day but use of the power represents the moment that the character has a real chance of it working. Encounter and Daily are just ways to represent the average frequency that a combination of skill and circumstances align to allow a real chance of success.

In my mind the powers/maneuvers are not in-world constructs. So, you don't learn "Steel serpent strike" down at the dojo. It is just a game construct that allows the player to dictate when her character can try to pull off some cool in-fiction move that represents a combination of skill and circumstance.

This is certainly very different game mechanics than trying to model every martial ability as an in-fiction ability, but I think it opens up a lot of space to model cool martial moves that would be too powerful if they succeeded more frequently. Notice I did not say "used more frequently" since it is assumed that they are being attempted more frequently just not succeeding.

Yes, this is definitely a gamist and abstract approach but no more so than many aspects of D&D -- HP, AC, etc. I am ok that some character abilities may represent in-game realities (spells?) and some may be tools to model more abstract concepts.