Community

 D&DN makes me laugh at times. Signaature spells are more or less encounter powers by any other name and they have already added at wills. They may have 4th ed written all over them but 3.5 had them in the Book of Nine Swords IIRC and 3.5 aso had at wills in the form of reserve feats and Pathfinder has elements of at wills and encounter powers as well even if they are disguised as 3/times per day or XYZ number of rounds per day.

 Not saying they need to bring back AEDU across the board but it  makes sense for things like the Dragonborn race and it would be a great way to make the races more interesting as well. Elven accuracy for example fits with elves being accurate with bows and it could be applied to magic attacks as well for elven wizards and clerics. Not all races for example need to have a racial power as long as they have something that is relevent for them.

 Now this leads to class design. I'm not 100% convinced that the new monk is very good and I do not like that they seem to be adding expertise dice every martial class- fighter, monk and rogue so far. The Warlock would be a good candidate for some encounter powers IMHO. Balance can be important but we all now what is broken from 3.5 and 4th ed and I would like to see some classes designed a bit more like 2nd ed ones. In pre 3rd ed some classes were more or less designed along the lines of "winging it".

 I'm starting to loath ED dice. The concept is good but I have concerns it is going to be overused and it ruins the whole bounded accuracy thing in terms of skill checks with skill mastery and mighty exertion. I do not want to see ED dice used on classes like the Ranger, Paladin and maybe Warlord. One could even make encounter powers optional via feats like in 4th ed and Star Wars Saga. If one doesn't want to use them for whatever reason don't take the feat.

 The concept of encounter powers is a great one IMHO. 4th ed may have overused them as every class had them and a large part of 4th eds class and role structure was built around AEDU. One doesn't have to bring back AEDU at all but I can see a use for encounter powers replacing XYZ times per day/round abilities from pre 4th ed D&D going back to 1st and 2nd ed class abilities as well.

I am going to agree with this. Encounter powers were fanatastic, especially for races. I don't know why they're avoiding them when they're such a great way to work so many things.

Yeah, Signature spells, a bad "obfuscation" of the per-encounter deal; talk about immersion breaking and board-game/skirmish action, IMO.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, Signature spells, a bad "obfuscation" of the per-encounter deal; talk about immersion breaking and board-game/skirmish action, IMO.

Yep.  That's about right.

I really like encounter powers.

Now, where will this thread go from here, I wonder?

My like/dislike of encounter powers depends on the proposed power.  On one end I like the fighter class pretty much as is though I would like more variety of maneuvers and I love Expertise Dice (was going to abbreviate that but decided discretion was the better part of discussion).  On the other the wizard traditions I am neutral to the signature spell only because they have to rely on it so heavily at low levels.  But perhaps that could be solved by allowing greater access to picking signature spells.    

I suggest a module about overerxertion. 

Some no magic tricks only could be used once because they are about surprise factor. I can´t imagine a fighter can´t do trick A because is tired but he can do trick B and C. If character is tired shouldn´t can  more efforts until after resting. 

I think some martial encounter powers can´t be spent without a Stor save againt overerxetion effect or only if the character has got the special condition "full of energy".



 

I just worry that with DDN trying to distance itself from 4E, it'll lose some of the good ideas.  After all, signature spells are just like encounter spells but you can only have one, ever!

I think the idea of powers (spells, maneuvers, whatever) that aren't at will but recharge more often than daily is okay.  I just think there needs to be something other than "encounter" to define it.  I didn't like the 4e system of encounters, I like more freeform progression through an adventure-be it dungeon crawl or diplomatic encounter.  Luis Carlos brings up a good point that if a character is too tired (or otherwise unable) to pull off one tough stunt, how can they pull off another?  Maybe there could be a pool of rechargeable spells, and once every X minutes the character could use one of them.  Just an idea

Nov 17, 2012 -- 5:24PM, greyhobbit13 wrote:

I think the idea of powers (spells, maneuvers, whatever) that aren't at will but recharge more often than daily is okay.  I just think there needs to be something other than "encounter" to define it.  I didn't like the 4e system of encounters, I like more freeform progression through an adventure-be it dungeon crawl or diplomatic encounter.  Luis Carlos brings up a good point that if a character is too tired (or otherwise unable) to pull off one tough stunt, how can they pull off another?  Maybe there could be a pool of rechargeable spells, and once every X minutes the character could use one of them.  Just an idea

I have 1 encounter power it allows my character to do a super leap... when I do it I strain a calve muscle it...  which I can bull past for most of my moves but pretty much makes that one move a one shot. Once I get an opportunity to relax and stretch it.. Im up for another.

Spells dont call on just one source of power and like physical activities they strain different elements of the psyche how long that part takes to recover is ummm shrug (could be ten minutes an hour a day). 

I have encounter power I can supress pain temporarily because I emotionally investing in one action the success of which triggers endorphins... I have to calm down to pull it off again, its not fatiguing actually.

I have an encounter power that is a trick ... which once its revealed is pretty much not going to be  work against anyone who seen it used recently. (you might attempt it at a penalty but usually it often wont be worth it)

I mostly disagree with adding encounter powers to most classes. Combat in Next seems very fast maybe 3 rounds average, encounter powers seem like they would just make such short combats always feel the same. If you have 1 or 2 encounter powers that are way better then your manuevers, then it just means EVERY combat your going to lead with them.

This seems like it will undermine all of the tactical complexity of XD and leave us with too many obvious "easy-button" solutions. It would just mean the real tactical plays in combat would just begin in round three after everone has extinguished their encounter powers. 

I would be okay with encounter powers that are not actions, but instead things more like words of power in application, I like the idea of them not being "power moves" but changing how players play or giving a one turn buff to the player or group. 

Examples of encounter powers I WOULD be okay with:
Fighter: 1/encounter fighter can choose to reroll any XD until the end of his next turn.
Rogue: 1/encounter rogue can make a skill check without spending an action.


As far as power moves, I'd prefer a few Daily powers as a general mechanic.

I think encounter utility powers offer a really cool benefit (esp. If tied to race).I would dig seeing (as has been discussed in several other threads) a way to "burn" XD to do exceptionally strenuous maneuvers. These dice wouldn't be recovered until after a short rest. Sure. Go nova. The rest of the fight won't be nearly as fun.

The problem has always been martial classes having encounter and daily powers. Those don't make sense. Everyone who doesn't like vancian magic (probably most of us) enjoy spell casters having at will and encounter spells. That's the difference. There is no logical reason to limit martial characters in such a way.

True.  Grognards get it the worse. You get a Vancian tradition smeared with AEDU. Encounter powers would do the same to other classes.

I like encounter powers, but I don't think it would make the game more fun to play if I'm imagining it, so I can live without it.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 10:02PM, NightsLastHero wrote:

The problem has always been martial classes having encounter and daily powers. Those don't make sense.

They make perfect sense to anybody willing to listen to something new. The only problem with martial encounter and daily abilities is some people being unable to get past their preconceived notions of what those limiters are meant to represent. To contrast, I see many experienced gamers who have issue with them but have not met even a single new player who thought they were any more immersion-breaking than encounter or daily spells.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 11:46PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

The only problem with martial encounter and daily abilities is some people being unable to get past their preconceived notions of what those limiters are meant to represent.

The only problem in your opinion; wow; new can be great, but not everybody in the party asking each other "...have you used your daily?"

I have had a lot of fun DMing 4th Ed, was on the train since day 1, but AEDU did not turn out to be something I am fond of.

Really, the issue I had with 4e was its execution. I don't mind having some abilities used on a per-encounter basis. I don't see any reason why a martial character shouldn't have these kinds of abilities either. It depends on the ability and how powerful it is in the context of the rest of the ability set.

If 5e uses a ton of ideas from 4e with different presentation, that's just fine by me. A lot of the ideas were good; I just didn't really like how they were implemented.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, Signature spells, a bad "obfuscation" of the per-encounter deal; talk about immersion breaking and board-game/skirmish action, IMO.

I agree. Encounter Powers, were immersion breaking - and brought tons of metagaming to the table.
That said, I think that the Warlock and the Wizard bring an interesting element to make them more believable.

- The warlock needs a small incantation to his/her patron that requires a short rest. 
- The Wizard must rest a while for him to refocus the spells powers.

That could actually be interesting as RPing.
So really what is an advancement in DDN in relation to 4e is that they're tying Encounters and Dailies to reasonable in believable solutions. 

I like encounter powers and 4th edition, but I don't like how they were defined and implemented.

I'm totally against dailies for non-magical classes, and I think that supernatural classes should only have access to the casting of a single (powerful) daily (one is the minimum number of encounters, easy take into consideration for DMs, and large amount of dailies are cheat paradise, intentional cheat or not).

Encounter spells can be justified for any class based on the surprise.
In french, we have the expression "botte secrète" for which I can't find direct translation online (maybe "secret weapon" or "artful thrust"). It comes from fencing and is an unique attack invented a kept secret by the fencer to surprise the enemy and is then almost unstoppable.
Basically, this secret attack is an at-will, but it works only once per encounter.
Developping and mastering these attacks require training and experience, so the number known by a fighter would be limited.

This surprise based system (encounter) can be used for a lot of things, like to disengage, or fake attacks to move across the battlefield without drawing attacks of opportunity.

Surprise based encounter abilities work even more easily with supernatural users.

And the short rest recuperation based encounter powers from DDN are still here to handle expended ressources like a breath weapon or supernatural power fuel.

I do want encounter powers availeble to people who like them, but in a way that they are not compulsary to people who not like them.

maybe somthing like special spells that create encounter powers

3rd level meta magic spell
target 1 1st level spell you have prepared.
the target spell now functions like a signature spell see the wizards section in the PHB for info on signature spells. 

5th level spell could make a level 2 spell function as encounter spell
7th level spell could make a level 3 spell function as encounter spell
9th level spell could make a level 4 spell function as encunter spell. 

I don't mind set durations for recoverinng spells, special abiltiies, etc. whether it is at-will, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or daily. So 4E encounter powers set the recovery time at 5 minutes. It probably boils down to the power of each effect and if there is enough design space to make them distinct when you consider at-will, versus 5 minutes, 10 mintues, or daily.

I like encounter powers in the manner they were implemented in the Book of 9 Swords, i.e. with an in-combat recharge mechanism.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 5:15AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

Encounter spells can be justified for any class based on the surprise.
In french, we have the expression "botte secrète" for which I can't find direct translation online (maybe "secret weapon" or "artful thrust"). It comes from fencing and is an unique attack invented a kept secret by the fencer to surprise the enemy and is then almost unstoppable.
Basically, this secret attack is an at-will, but it works only once per encounter.
Developping and mastering these attacks require training and experience, so the number known by a fighter would be limited.

This surprise based system (encounter) can be used for a lot of things, like to disengage, or fake attacks to move across the battlefield without drawing attacks of opportunity.

The fact that there are real life terms for phenomena (and even real life reasons they cant generally be repeated) doesnt stop those who have been aclimatised to the fighter doing nothing interesting just doing it a lot, from baulking.

The invitation is a term in fencing that amounts to leaving a false opening to seduce your enemy in to making an attack along a particular path which you are in fact very ready for...  it is also a pretense of weakness and highly appropriate, to not work multiple times against the same enemy (come and get it is a fantasy rendering of this, fantasy in part because its really hard to deal with multiple enemies at once and quite common in fantasy).

There is an old saying called "fool me once... shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." (or something to that effect).

Nov 18, 2012 -- 5:15AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

Surprise based encounter abilities work even more easily with supernatural users.

Can be modelled so many ways it isnt funny including treating Vancian casting the same as it was in the Jack Vance books OR having the spell being at-will but create a temporary localized restistance to itself

Nov 18, 2012 -- 5:15AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

And the short rest recuperation based encounter powers from DDN are still here to handle expended ressources like a breath weapon or supernatural power fuel.

Or any form of localized strain.

I don't mind encounter powers in the game as long as I can easily remove them from the game without removing important archetypes.

I don't want encounter powers in my games because they invalidate my playstyle. If you want to play a dungeon crawl that is a mix of big fights and small trivial combat that tax just a little bit of the party's daily resources, then you don't want to have encounter powers. From my little 4th edition experience, encounter powers are enough to trivialize these encounters without even spending a healing surge.

Conversely not having encounter powers makes daily powers too important and reduces the effective length of the game day. (or can encourage it for them who are dependent on them)

And makes what I want to be trivial.. .too important.

It also means for the non-daily crew mono-tone ... capability, aka potentiallly boring.

I dislike Encounter powers for the vagueness and gamist definition. Labeling them "Encounter" powers pushes me away.
I much prefer treating them like a signature power where they can be recharged quickly but they're not some lesser daily power. Having them as Encounter powers but not calling them out as such.

The problem with Encounter powers for other types or classes, is that most tend to lend them best for exploratory powers. But there's no such thing as an "Encounter" in the exploratory timeframe so they pretty much become at-wills.  

There are ways though. I can imagine advanced Combat Manuver that burn out all your ED until you can spend 10 minutes resting. 

Encounter powers make sense.  Not every thing can be done continually and not everthing takes a day to setup/recover from.

X times per day is what really should be dropped.  It rarely makes sense (perhaps for spells).  Monks ki, for instance would make more sense as an encounter power then x times per day.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 8:29AM, mellored wrote:

Encounter powers make sense. Not every thing can be done continually and not everthing takes a day to setup/recover from. X times per day is what really should be dropped. It rarely makes sense (perhaps for spells). Monks ki, for instance would make more sense as an encounter power then x times per day.

What do you mean 'makes sense'?  From a meta game perspective?

To be perfectly honest, we do need another word for encounter. However, encounter powers make a lot of sense.

First, in real life, fighting is tiring. A 3 minute round is intense. In D&D, that's 30 turns.  You can't spend the whole time throwing out attacks or else you'll be dead tired.

Second, in fiction, fighting is tiring. The hero is usually pretty strong, but he never spends all his time on the offensive. The finishing moves can't be used over and over.

Third, in games, fighting is tiring. In some games, you have a resource pool, which prevents you from continuously using your moves. In some games, you have cooldowns. In some games you have to press a lot of buttons to do your combo nd you can't always pull it off.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 7:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Conversely not having encounter powers makes daily powers too important and reduces the effective length of the game day. (or can encourage it for them who are dependent on them)

And makes what I want to be trivial.. .too important.

This is something I don't really understand.

The way I see it, "lesser" daily powers and encounter powers are interchangeable. For every encounter power you should have gotten, you get 4-5 lower level daily powers with roughly the same strength. At each encounter, you burn as many lesser dailies as you would have used encounter powers and the same number of major daily powers.

This should work for people that want 4-5 important encounters per adventuring day.

This probably also works for those that want 1-2 important encounters per day. You just anticipate the nova effect exactly like you did in 4th edition. 

It doesn't work for people that just want a nearly unlimited amount of trivial encounters per day that use so little of your daily resources (Healing Surges) that you can have 15-20 of those. I'm sure that's not your playstyle.

I see what you mean by "encouraged to use daily powers" though. It's very true that in my AD&D experience, most of my players would use a spell every round, even a lesser spell. But that's because their only other option was shooting darts... It's only natural for players to want to contribute to a fight every round. I personally pick Magic Missile over shooting 3 darts that each deal 1d4 damage, even if that means going to bed early.

But I think 4th edition solved that problem with at-will powers, not encounters powers. In a EDU (no at-will) system, once you run out of encounter powers, if your only option is to shoot darts, your players will use daily powers.

The reason I come to this conclusion is my 3rd edition experience. Once we figured out how important wands, staves and reserve feats were, our spellcasters stopped using their daillies as fillers and our adventuring days were much longer (sometimes as much as 6-7 interesting encounters).

Nov 18, 2012 -- 7:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

It also means for the non-daily crew mono-tone ... capability, aka potentiallly boring.

Agreed. At-will powers are boring. It was true in 4th edition (in my opinion), 3rd edition (wand of magic missile is not that fun) and in AD&D (yay for shooting darts!).

I think we saw that AEDU was a complete failure from a verisimilitude standpoint and would absolutely not be something that should be included in 5E.  As it is, I'm not a huge fan in the direction they are taking magic, other than to limit the amount of spells a wizard can have memorized at any one time.

Now, on the other hand, AEDU is PERFECT for monsters as the DM IS running the metagame. Since the DM's job is to control and run the metagame, having monsters with an AEDU model doesn't hurt anything, rather it streamlines play.

So in short. Players NO, Monsters YES.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 11:46PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

They make perfect sense to anybody willing to listen to something new. The only problem with martial encounter and daily abilities is some people being unable to get past their preconceived notions of what those limiters are meant to represent. To contrast, I see many experienced gamers who have issue with them but have not met even a single new player who thought they were any more immersion-breaking than encounter or daily spells.

I fear I dont have the ability to articulate this. I am an experienced player who believes that encounter powers dont make sense for martial classes. Its not that I haven’t listened to explanations.

The problem I have isnt related to immersion. My problem is that it breaks from a simulation. I refuse to implement rules that make the game less realistic for no good reason. There is not a physical feat that cant be replicated more than once in a battle. You could even sneak up on someone twice in the same battle if they fled and hid.

Ive listened to all the arguments. My answer to these arguments concedes that certain maneuvers should suffer from diminishing returns, and could only be used in certain situations. There are theoretical Next Powers and existing 4e Warlord exploits that are sophisticated and require multiple party members. I could see why they could only be used at the start of combat. They make sense to me however they dont make sense as individual powers. These types of exploits are party powers.

Every member of a party could share in certain party powers. A power could be called, right arm of Dwarven Phalanx. Everyone in the party has a piece or two of that formation. I hope the Warlord transitions to a prestige class for almost any class but certain Monks, and Priest domains. These Warlord classes could create party powers yet any party that pays to learn party powers could have them.

That is my sick delirium. Encounters powers don't make sense unless they are CRIPS community, revolution in the party's service. ????? Party Power is the way to go for encounter stuff. 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Rory wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

I fear I dont have the ability to articulate this. I am an experienced player who believes that encounter powers dont make sense for martial classes. Its not that I haven’t listened to explanations.

No Encounter powers make sense for any classes. They are purely a metagame construct not even masquerading as something different.

It's not like the character says to himself "Wow, I am encountering a new foe, I'll now be able to use my spinning blades attack again!"

"Maybe if I run away and then run back to the battle again, it will be a new 'encounter' and I can use my spinning blades again"
hogwash

Nov 18, 2012 -- 6:35AM, OleOneEye wrote:

I like encounter powers in the manner they were implemented in the Book of 9 Swords, i.e. with an in-combat recharge mechanism.

That I could actually get behind. Having built in recharge mechanics not just for Encounter power but also for Daily powers going a long way towards making them both a bit more believable if that matters to you.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Rory wrote:

I am an experienced player who believes that encounter powers dont make sense for martial classes.

Yes, that's what I've said. I've met many experienced gamers who take issue with it for thinking that it's bad for immersion or simulation, but I've not met a single newer player that thinks it's any worse than daily spells on a caster. "If I know how to cast a spell, then why can't I just cast it whenever I want?" they might ask. Whatever logical answers you can come up with for that pretty much work just as well for martial abilities. If you really think about it, I think you'll find that the underlying root of your objection that it's just a large departure from how you're used to seeing martial combat mechanically represented.

My problem is that it breaks from a simulation. I refuse to implement rules that make the game less realistic for no good reason. There is not a physical feat that cant be replicated more than once in a battle. You could even sneak up on someone twice in the same battle if they fled and hid.

And how do you reconcile this view with a lack of issue with spells being daily? What is at all realistic about that, especially when you compare it to most forms of magic in media and literature? It's not like it's hard to imagine a character that can cast Sleep at-will. But just as it's not difficult to imagine a caster that runs out of magical energy quickly and finds it too difficult to concentrate after, it's not difficult to imaging a martial character that has low endurance or only knows a few reliable tricks that the enemy catches onto quickly enough to make the fighting style ineffective.

Minor strains, short term fatigue and tricks that require suprise make perfect sense...

Extreme detail tracking exactly which enemy you have already played the trick on and checking which have good memories and who will be expecting it etc etc etc ... now that makes no sense. Tracking which moves a strain will inhibit ... oh I strained my left calve for that move and this move involves that same extremity so I cant do either move... now that makes no sense.

Its the same abstraction used in hit points really breaking it down in to individual details would be better but there is a limit and generalization because this is a game. 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:18AM, Gnarl wrote:

Agreed. At-will powers are boring. It was true in 4th edition (in my opinion), 3rd edition (wand of magic missile is not that fun) and in AD&D (yay for shooting darts!).

I disagree, at-wills in 4ed were boring because of the encounter and daiily powers (and limited options for at-will).

5ed Manuevers are way better then 4ed at-wills. They give players a lot of power over their turn. Encounter powers will likely render them obsolete, this game has short combats. A 10th level fighter with 2-3 encounter powers will only ever be doing the the same thing in every combat... sounds boring. 

If everybody is just going to do the same encounter powers every turn, why not just make them manuevers and not limit flexability of the players. 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:09AM, zago wrote:

 ... sounds boring.   

Battles that are only mook fighting are going to be boring anyway.. something has to change. Encounter powers give a boost to potency but they arent that extreme... they do make potency fluctuate instead of being... xxxxx 

they make it

x+1/2, x-1/2,x-1/2,x+1/2,x-1/2

In music the at-wills provide one tempo every single turn with no crescendos and no pauses.. boring. 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:17AM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:09AM, zago wrote:

 ... sounds boring.   

Battles that are only mook fighting are going to be boring anyway.. something has to change. Encounter powers give a boost to potency but they arent that extreme... they do make potency fluctuate instead of being... xxxxx 

they make it

x+1/2, x-1/2,x-1/2,x+1/2,x-1/2

In music the at-wills provide one tempo every single turn with no crescendos and no pauses.. boring. 

I've personally found XD and maneuvers to already fill that function.  No fights I've participated in in Next have been boring thus far.  

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:22AM, hollbk01 wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:17AM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:09AM, zago wrote:

 ... sounds boring.   

Battles that are only mook fighting are going to be boring anyway.. something has to change. Encounter powers give a boost to potency but they arent that extreme... they do make potency fluctuate instead of being... xxxxx 

they make it

x+1/2, x-1/2,x-1/2,x+1/2,x-1/2

In music the at-wills provide one tempo every single turn with no crescendos and no pauses.. boring. 

I've personally found XD and maneuvers to already fill that function.  

Your at-wills are changing the pitch not the tempo... it is ok... 

And as I said mooks are fun to fight for a while. 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:18AM, Gnarl wrote:

 
But I think 4th edition solved that problem with at-will powers, not encounters powers. In a EDU (no at-will) system, once you run out of encounter powers, if your only option is to shoot darts, your players will use daily powers.

Anything which reduces the amount of suckage when daily resources are depleted... has an impact. And at-wills do by allowing your characters style to persist... but not in terms of potency.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 7:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

It also means for the non-daily crew mono-tone ... capability, aka potentiallly boring.

Agreed. At-will powers are boring. It was true in 4th edition (in my opinion), 3rd edition (wand of magic missile is not that fun) and in AD&D (yay for shooting darts!).

Well at-wills in 4e and now 5e are more interesting than the dart throwing was... 

I also feel the action points contributed significantly to creating the crescendo...  effect.
 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:56AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

 Yes, that's what I've said. I've met many experienced gamers who take issue with it for thinking that it's bad for immersion or simulation, but I've not met a single newer player that thinks it's any worse than daily spells on a caster. "If I know how to cast a spell, then why can't I just cast it whenever I want?" they might ask. Whatever logical answers you can come up with for that pretty much work just as well for martial abilities. If you really think about it, I think you'll find that the underlying root of your objection that it's just a large departure from how you're used to seeing martial combat mechanically represented.

I have finished enough of a pure Atwill magic tradition to set a 1^st level character. I can answer that question to a new player. I've also doctored on a pure vancian class. Explaining vancian magic to new players is easy though I agree that if you give a newb a vancian mage and a fighter with encounter powers they are more likely to question vancian magic.  

And how do you reconcile this view with a lack of issue with spells being daily? What is at all realistic about that, especially when you compare it to most forms of magic in media and literature? It's not like it's hard to imagine a character that can cast Sleep at-will. But just as it's not difficult to imagine a caster that runs out of magical energy quickly and finds it too difficult to concentrate after, it's not difficult to imaging a martial character that has low endurance or only knows a few reliable tricks that the enemy catches onto quickly enough to make the fighting style ineffective.

I dont need to reconcile it. I see no reason to entertain the workings of magic while talking about martial maneuvers. I do offer a pure atwill class and a pure vancian class. I can make a much better case to the players for those traditions than the current please-everyone hodgepodge. 

I simply dont buy this idea that something can only be used once a fight to the extent that it would be more efficient to write it in the rules as such. The only exceptions are powers for the entire party and even those might be better as utility powers. The further removed a maneuver is from one single action the more mechanical the game becomes. An example is giving a basketball player in a video game a dunk maneuver. Once a game they can dunk on anyone. Poor game design. Better to give them superior ball handling, leaping, and the ability to inspire with dunks. Let them put the package together themselves as natural as possible. Most encounter powers bring a complex feat from start to finish in the same way a dunk feat would. While on the rant- Its comes off as lazy game design. Its time consuming to define a maneuver that has multiple factors. Its easy to give out something with uncanny power and usage limits."        

Nov 18, 2012 -- 11:05AM, Rory wrote:

 Its time consuming to define a maneuver that has multiple factors. Its easy to give out something with uncanny power and usage limits."        

The problem has often been that attempting to track such multiple factors often conspire to induce
"oh well I guess I will just hit it on the toe like everybody else" 

 

@Garthanos

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't understand what makes Encounter powers less boring. You describe it as a tempo change, but to me its like every song gets the same intro. AT-Wills were more or less the same, and the only mechanic that disrupted the flow of the average combat vs. the special one was daily powers. 

I could undestand perhaps if you could get 4 powers wrapped up into one encounter power so that each combat I make a tactical decision which power fits this encounter. That would make encounter powers feel unique and not mundane.

My biggest problem with encounter powers is that in most situations they actually take the combat decisions away from the player and give it to the system. If I get 6 powers, and one of them is twice as good as the rest, then I am always going to use it, it no longer becomes something special, it becomes a mindless and obvious decision.

I also disagree with the tempo analogy you made. XD represent the first time tempo can change, I have no idea what I am going to do as a fighter until I see how things occur inbetween my turns. Admitedly this is minor at low level, but once you get 3 dice, you will have combats where have a hige amount of power to change the tempo from highly aggresive to highly defensive, but becuase these decisions are balanced and buillt into a gamble mechanic its way more exciting then to win and be successful with them, because you made tactical decisons to achieve high performance.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Warrant wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Rory wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

I fear I dont have the ability to articulate this. I am an experienced player who believes that encounter powers dont make sense for martial classes. Its not that I haven’t listened to explanations.

No Encounter powers make sense for any classes. They are purely a metagame construct not even masquerading as something different.

It's not like the character says to himself "Wow, I am encountering a new foe, I'll now be able to use my spinning blades attack again!"

"Maybe if I run away and then run back to the battle again, it will be a new 'encounter' and I can use my spinning blades again"
hogwash

You can't make an argument with ignorance. You can only say that because you've never actually played 4e. Encounter powers aren't available every encounter just because they're called encounter powers. You only get them back if you take a short rest. The same thing  applies to daily powers. They don't magically come back every 24 hours. You have to take a long rest and if you get attacked before they recharge, you don't get them back..

Maybe we should just have powers with cooldowns or an energy pool, for the sake of realism, but that'd just complicate things.

Encounter and daily powers do not onsolete at-wills. In 4E, some optimied characters focus on using at-wills. Free attacks with at-will basic attacks were very potent. Also, fights aren't supposed to end so quickly that you never run out of powers. The only reason you'd think that they'd be obsoleting is because the monsters are all currently in very easy mode. Besides, encounter powers don't necessarily mean attacks that do higher damage. Encounter powers could be an extra attack or an attac that stuns.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 12:42PM, zago wrote:

@Garthanos

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't understand what makes Encounter powers less boring. You describe it as a tempo change, but to me its like every song gets the same intro. AT-Wills were more or less the same, and the only mechanic that disrupted the flow of the average combat vs. the special one was daily powers. 

I could undestand perhaps if you could get 4 powers wrapped up into one encounter power so that each combat I make a tactical decision which power fits this encounter. That would make encounter powers feel unique and not mundane.

I dont want all encounter powers to be a first action choice either I would like some of them to work better deeper in to the fight for instance and I would like the highlighted idea of what you mentioned as I have suggested it myself. But either way its still encounter powers, subtly different implementation can have good effects we dont have them at all as it stands.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 12:42PM, zago wrote:

I also disagree with the tempo analogy you made.  

The tempo/pitch analogy is only an anology of course. Tempo is actually varied by the potency/impact of those abilities a defensive encounter power having higher allowed impact is still making a higher variance peaks and vallies. The analogy is one of having another factor by which the action is varied ie the music is richer. I can tap the cymbol again and again or tap a different cymbol or I can make a big hit on the cymbol... the big hit breaks things up within the fight itself, it doesnt make it different than other fights, its a given round having a different amount of pop based on something other than fluke die rolls.

I also feel the lack of action points which also contributed to the crescendo.. 
 

Nov 18, 2012 -- 12:52PM, Aesurtiel wrote:

You can't make an argument with ignorance. You can only say that because you've never actually played 4e. Encounter powers aren't available every encounter just because they're called encounter powers. You only get them back if you take a short rest. The same thing  applies to daily powers. They don't magically come back every 24 hours. You have to take a long rest and if you get attacked before they recharge, you don't get them back..

Maybe we should just have powers with cooldowns or an energy pool, for the sake of realism, but that'd just complicate things.

Encounter and daily powers do not onsolete at-wills. In 4E, some optimied characters focus on using at-wills. Free attacks with at-will basic attacks were very potent. Also, fights aren't supposed to end so quickly that you never run out of powers. The only reason you'd think that they'd be obsoleting is because the monsters are all currently in very easy mode. Besides, encounter powers don't necessarily mean attacks that do higher damage. Encounter powers could be an extra attack or an attac that stuns.

There is nothing I can think of that should leave a character so physically exerted that they need to rest before doing again reguardless of con. Its only six seconds.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Rory wrote:

There is nothing I can think of that should leave a character so physically exerted that they need to rest before doing again reguardless of con. Its only six seconds.

So you've read some books, watched some movies, played some games, and now you think you know how it feels to be an adventurer?

Hike through the woods for half a day. Climb upa a cliff face. Then finally encounter some bandits. Get hit in the shoulder with an arrow. Parry a sword slash. It's finally you turn. Do a whirldwind attack. Dodge a fireball. Get shot again. Parry another sword slash. Now try that whirldwind attac again.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 8:33AM, jdnyc wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 8:29AM, mellored wrote:

Encounter powers make sense. Not every thing can be done continually and not everthing takes a day to setup/recover from. X times per day is what really should be dropped. It rarely makes sense (perhaps for spells). Monks ki, for instance would make more sense as an encounter power then x times per day.

What do you mean 'makes sense'?  From a meta game perspective?

From a story perspective.

I mean, "i can channel my inner energies to punch you so hard it stuns, and can do it 3 times in a row, but then i need to sleep before i can do it anymore"
or
"i can channel my inner energies to punch you so hard it stuns, but need to rest a few minutes to do it again.".
Few things make sense as X times per day.  It's a very gamey mechanic.  Encounters make alot more sense.

Though i could see a mix.  "you can use this once per ten minutes, but no more then 3 times per day"...  And i'm sure a few things would make sense X times per day. 

Characters in fiction who have "moves" almost universally treat them as though they were encounter or daily powers, even if there's no particular reason for that to be the case. It's like a narrative thing. I don't expect that to mean a whole to to most people (it doesn't mean a whole lot to me), but it's something to think about. (They also tend to build up to using their most impressive abilities, something that does not happen in 4e. The fact that in tabletop games frontloading impact is more effective means that characters tend to use their splashiest moves first.)

Nov 18, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Rory wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 12:52PM, Aesurtiel wrote:

You can't make an argument with ignorance. You can only say that because you've never actually played 4e. Encounter powers aren't available every encounter just because they're called encounter powers. You only get them back if you take a short rest. The same thing  applies to daily powers. They don't magically come back every 24 hours. You have to take a long rest and if you get attacked before they recharge, you don't get them back..

Maybe we should just have powers with cooldowns or an energy pool, for the sake of realism, but that'd just complicate things.

Encounter and daily powers do not onsolete at-wills. In 4E, some optimied characters focus on using at-wills. Free attacks with at-will basic attacks were very potent. Also, fights aren't supposed to end so quickly that you never run out of powers. The only reason you'd think that they'd be obsoleting is because the monsters are all currently in very easy mode. Besides, encounter powers don't necessarily mean attacks that do higher damage. Encounter powers could be an extra attack or an attac that stuns.

There is nothing I can think of that should leave a character so physically exerted that they need to rest before doing again reguardless of con. Its only six seconds.

so would a faitugue point system be more realiatic to you ?
we used it as a optional rule in some of our 4th edition games.

in standard 4th edition you have 4 encounter powers each of witch could be used only once per encounter and would reset after a short rest.
some of us found it strange that you could only use each manuver once.

So the optional rule we used was as follows :
you would have a number of points equal to the number of encounter powers you know each encounter resetting after a shoet rest.
You spend one of these points to use a encounter power so you would still be limited to 4 encounter powers in a encounter.
but the limit of only being able to use a specific power once per encounter is removed.

this to us better represented the efect of faitigue during combat better then the base system.
 

 I'm not saying that enconter powers should be used alot but it makes sense for some classes. Are they realistc? No but we are all playing a game where reality went out the window a long time ago regardless of ediiton. Hell in 2nd ed you could jump out of a spaceship in orbit, take 20d6 reentry damage, then take 20d6 falling damage and then hit the ground, bounce off and get up and keep going.

So there's a lot of talk about realistic and unrealistic.  To me that's neither here nor there.  For those who are proponents of encounter powers could you list some ideas for encounter powers in order that we can have some concrete examples?

I few of the 4th ed racial ones I liked. Elven accuracy, Dragonborn breath weapon, the halfling one.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 2:51PM, Zardnaar wrote:

I few of the 4th ed racial ones I liked. Elven accuracy, Dragonborn breath weapon, the halfling one.

My 4th ed book is in storage and it's been two years since I played it so I don't remember specifics.

Yes, racial encounter powers were fantastic. They were a great way to give race an active, meaningful impact in combat without making race too important. "Realistic" or not, they were great from a design perspective.
If you want more specific examples, I created some simple encounter-power-like racial features for this thread.

Encounter powers suggestions: What if halflings were really good knee ticklers?  Dragonborn don't have a breath weapon, just terrible halitosis so that it even makes undead uncomfortable and characters have to breath real heavy to roleplay it?

Nov 18, 2012 -- 2:57PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Yes, racial encounter powers were fantastic. They were a great way to give race an active, meaningful impact in combat without making race too important. "Realistic" or not, they were great from a design perspective.
If you want more specific examples, I created some simple encounter-power-like racial features for this thread.

Outside of encounter powers I like the concept of races being able to choose from a suite of abilities instead of being saddled with the same abilities.  Are these supposed to be encounter abilities?  Because most I would prefer as at wills.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 3:01PM, hollbk01 wrote:

Outside of encounter powers I like the concept of races being able to choose from a suite of abilities instead of being saddled with the same abilities.  Are these supposed to be encounter abilities? Because most I would prefer as at wills.

Some of the optional features are per encounter, some are static. Each one says how it works specifically. All of the ones that are encounter abilities would be overpowered if at-will.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Nov 18, 2012 -- 3:01PM, hollbk01 wrote:

Outside of encounter powers I like the concept of races being able to choose from a suite of abilities instead of being saddled with the same abilities.  Are these supposed to be encounter abilities? Because most I would prefer as at wills.

Some of the optional features are per encounter, some are static. Each one says how it works specifically. All of the ones that are encounter abilities would be overpowered if at-will.

Yeah I glanced over it but bookmarked it for later perusal.  If I remember I will get back to you on them.  

Nov 18, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Rory wrote:

Ive listened to all the arguments. My answer to these arguments concedes that certain maneuvers should suffer from diminishing returns, and could only be used in certain situations.

Sounds like playing a trip specialist in 3e.  Talk about your maneuvers with diminishing returns... "Best if used by 6th level!"

Nov 18, 2012 -- 12:42PM, zago wrote:

My biggest problem with encounter powers is that in most situations they actually take the combat decisions away from the player and give it to the system. If I get 6 powers, and one of them is twice as good as the rest, then I am always going to use it, it no longer becomes something special, it becomes a mindless and obvious decision.

The problem isn't the power system, the problem is terribly-designed powers.  Inept design is something that has plagued tons of options in nearly every edition of nearly every RPG known to man.  To design well requires commitment to design principles, a thorough understanding of design, and an incredibly solid base to build from.  Even then, people still screw up, which leads to situations where you have to pan through trash options looking for good ones.

I really dislike the idea of "encounter" powers.  Give me powers with a set recharge time.  If you want them to be "encounter", then just give them a shorter recharge rate, like 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 60 minutes or something.  They will be ready for most encounters that way.

Encounter abilities are perfectly realistic, or at least as much as anything else in the game. If you've played a sport you know that you absolutely can not sustain your maximum effort non-stop. You have to pace yourself and only give max effort in bursts. Indoor soccer and hockey are perfect illustrations of this. The pace of those games are so great that even the fittest athlete must come out of the game frequently and rest. However, after few minutes on the bench, he is able to go back out and perform at a high level again. That's why boxing is broken up into a bunch of quick rounds. If the fight didn't have any breaks, the boxers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves anywhere near as long.

Martial combat is extremely taxing and a skilled fighter will only go all out when he sees an opening or is desperate. And the longer the fight drags on, the harder it is to deliver even those short bursts of extra effort. In such a ridiculously abstracted system as D&D, limiting a particularly powerful action to once a battle makes a ton of sense. To complain that "it isn't realistic" when HP isn't realistic, when AC isn't realistic, when even movement is greatly abstracted, is baffling. D&D is not about reality, it is about fantasy and there are tons of elements that are as bad or worse as encounter powers when it comes to realism that are accepted by just about everyone who plays D&D so I don't understand why people would make an issue of realism in this case.

Martial combat is extremely taxing and a skilled fighter will only go all out when he sees an opening or is desperate. And the longer the fight drags on, the harder it is to deliver even those short bursts of extra effort. In such a ridiculously abstracted system as D&D, limiting a particularly powerful action to once a battle makes a ton of sense. To complain that "it isn't realistic" when HP isn't realistic, when AC isn't realistic, when even movement is greatly abstracted, is baffling. D&D is not about reality, it is about fantasy and there are tons of elements that are as bad or worse as encounter powers when it comes to realism that are accepted by just about everyone who plays D&D so I don't understand why people would make an issue of realism in this case.

Its a valid point but I think when people talk about realism, it comes from the practical application of the game system to their games and what your talking about here is the abstraction on paper.  Another words, practical experiance vs. concept.  Conceptually I agree with you, this makes perfect sense and is no more or less realistic than any other sub system of the game.  In practice however the experiance is very different and as usual the devil is in the details.  I guess one could say Encounter Powers where very unrealistic in 4th edition D&D, the concept itself was fine, but how the different types of encounter powers where implemented, what they represented, how those events played out in a typical game and other such finite details is what the "unrealistic" camp is basing there opinion.  Its worth saying that most of the issues of realism come from the Martial Classes.


It comes down to defining what impact the player creative narrative should have on the game and how the GM should respond.  Just an example (that came up in my own game).

I had a very strong Dragon Born who thought everyone in his party was a whimp and needed "experiance".  He would often try to shove his fellow adventures into the thick of combat to "toughen them up".  I had another player who was a fighter, who had the "Get Over Here" utility power that effectively allowed him to slide a friendly two squares which is an encounter power (aka he can do it once during a fight).

Being put into the percarious position of differentiating mechanical results from one player doing something narratively and another doing the same thing using a power was difficult.  The problem is that it happened constantly, pretty much every round of every fight because players where constantly creating "narrative actions" for which they did not have powers for that did exist in the form of encounter powers.  It was a constant headache and the realism of scenes suffered for it.  I could not allow a narratively defined actions to have mechanical effects equivilant to someone elses (or any existing) Encounter Power.


Simply put, there are too many powers that define narrative actions that players want to take in the game as a natural product of running a scene.  Players don't want to "execute abilities", they want to define their actions narratively which is perfectly reasonable and is really as far as Im concerned how players should define their actions.  I don't want to here "Im using my encounter power" at the table, it breaks the scenes narrative component, but in the end this is what ended up happenining in 4th edition games which is where the "Less role-playing in D&D" comes from.   By defining so many narrative actions mechanically via at will, encounter and daily powers you close the door on those narrative actions to players who don't have the power.  


The problem is to that if a player defines a narrative action, he expect mechanical results whether he has the actual power or not.  Another words if a player defines a "Im going to put my sword and sheild up and brace myself for the charge", he expects some sort of mechanical benefit from his action, but this action is really defined by several different types of encounter and at will powers like "No openning" for example.  So you, as a GM, must know what "effects" are covered by powers and make sure you don't give those benefits to a player who doesn't have them.  With literly hundreds of different powers narratively defined, this is a nightmare.


The end result is that realism suffers, realism in the narrative sense as the connection between the narrative and mechanical are wishy washy unless players simply accept that they can only take the types of action for which they have powers.  Players generally don't want to do that, they want to believe the game world is free and that they can take any kind of action they want to describe and have it results be mechanical.  In a sense, by definition this is role-playing.

Does that make sense?                      
          

    

Nov 18, 2012 -- 10:44PM, HoboJustice wrote:

Encounter abilities are perfectly realistic, or at least as much as anything else in the game. If you've played a sport you know that you absolutely can not sustain your maximum effort non-stop. You have to pace yourself and only give max effort in bursts. Indoor soccer and hockey are perfect illustrations of this. The pace of those games are so great that even the fittest athlete must come out of the game frequently and rest. However, after few minutes on the bench, he is able to go back out and perform at a high level again. That's why boxing is broken up into a bunch of quick rounds. If the fight didn't have any breaks, the boxers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves anywhere near as long.

Martial combat is extremely taxing and a skilled fighter will only go all out when he sees an opening or is desperate. And the longer the fight drags on, the harder it is to deliver even those short bursts of extra effort. In such a ridiculously abstracted system as D&D, limiting a particularly powerful action to once a battle makes a ton of sense. To complain that "it isn't realistic" when HP isn't realistic, when AC isn't realistic, when even movement is greatly abstracted, is baffling. D&D is not about reality, it is about fantasy and there are tons of elements that are as bad or worse as encounter powers when it comes to realism that are accepted by just about everyone who plays D&D so I don't understand why people would make an issue of realism in this case.

In my exeriance many people don't mind that you can only do 4 of these atacks in one encounter.

The problem seems to be more why you can't do the same encounter manuver more then once.
after using encounter atack A your so tired that you can't do it again, yet you can make encounter attacks B,C and D witch also put a lot of strain on your body

You could disconec the powers from their use, still having the limit of 4 in a encounter to show you are getting tired.
but not stoping you from using the same power more then once as long as you don't use more then 4 in one encounter.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 12:57AM, edwin_su wrote:

You could disconec the powers from their use, still having the limit of 4 in a encounter to show you are getting tired.
but not stoping you from using the same power more then once as long as you don't use more then 4 in one encounter.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Aesurtiel wrote:

So you've read some books, watched some movies, played some games, and now you think you know how it feels to be an adventurer?

Hike through the woods for half a day. Climb upa a cliff face. Then finally encounter some bandits. Get hit in the shoulder with an arrow. Parry a sword slash. It's finally you turn. Do a whirldwind attack. Dodge a fireball. Get shot again. Parry another sword slash. Now try that whirldwind attac again.

You are making my point. You are applying conditions that would be removed from the simulation.

FYI I know a thing about the physical shape someone has to be in for combat. In a way its all academic since maneuvers arent limited enough.