1) Encounter powers are more or less better that at will powers, so you are going to use them every encounter regardless of the special effects they have since you can use them every encounter.
2) Since you use your encounter powers every encounter, you need to select them with the mindset that you will use them every encounter. This means that encounter powers that have high situational value need to be passed over for consistently useful ones if you are looking to make a "good" character. Which is a shamed because situational powers are often fun and would help create new strategic paths and more tactical options.
3) Because you are generally going to use every encounter power you have during every encounter your in anyway, the only tactical decision making to speak of when deciding to use your encounter values is if you will be able to set up a situation to milk the power in particular with the specifics of the encounter. You can't "do something different".
4) Daily powers may help break the repetitiveness of you power usage, but since they are more powerful they often "need" to be saved for "important" encounters rather then used when their situational value is high or during a long, but easy fight to add some variety.
My Solution?
Have a pool of encounter powers. Every time you select an encounter power, select two instead. When use you an encounter power, you choose between them. This would help solve the problem I have with the side effect of making PCs more powerful. So, you can raise encounter budgets if things get easy.
Your thoughts? Would you use this option if presented? Does it have some major problems that destroy the game?
You've successfully summed up the point of encounter powers. This is exactly how they're intended to operate. You're not supposed to be picking powers you won't get a lot of use out of - that's what utility powers are, in part, for. I'm willing to entertain an argument that utility powers don't fulfill their purpose, but that's their problem, it's not an issue with encounters.
If you want a game with more "thinking outside the box", then as DM be more generous with enabling non-power actions by your players. You'll sacrifice some combat balance to gain some creativity and action, which is exactly what you seem to want.
Not sure I see your problem.
??
You've successfully summed up the point of encounter powers. This is exactly how they're intended to operate. You're not supposed to be picking powers you won't get a lot of use out of - that's what utility powers are, in part, for. I'm willing to entertain an argument that utility powers don't fulfill their purpose, but that's their problem, it's not an issue with encounters.
If you want a game with more "thinking outside the box", then as DM be more generous with enabling non-power actions by your players. You'll sacrifice some combat balance to gain some creativity and action, which is exactly what you seem to want.
Not sure I see your problem.
As you can clearly see, I understand the game and the nature of encounter powers. My problem is, the game isn't fulfilling my tactical sensibilities. Daily Powers are too limited in number and too focused "powerful" to be used situationally. Rather then inventing a new power type, I think changing the "point" of encounter powers will make the game more fun.
Handling it with "non-power actions" misses the point of this. The tactical decision making should be in the players hands, not subject to negotiation with the DM. It isn't about improv, its about improving actual gameplay.
Actually, many months ago I had a big discussion about improvised stunts using the environment because I thought page 42 was too limited for the same reason (puts decision in DM's hands, doesn't give the player a concrete sense about things).
As you can clearly see, I understand the game and the nature of encounter powers. My problem is, the game isn't fulfilling my tactical sensibilities. Daily Powers are too limited in number and too focused "powerful" to be used situationally. Rather then inventing a new power type, I think changing the "point" of encounter powers will make the game more fun.
Handling it with "non-power actions" misses the point of this. The tactical decision making should be in the players hands, not subject to negotiation with the DM. It isn't about improv, its about improving actual gameplay.
Actually, many months ago I had a big discussion about improvised stunts using the environment because I thought page 42 was too limited for the same reason (puts decision in DM's hands, doesn't give the player a concrete sense about things).
I still don't get your problem. If you enjoy the rules-bound tactical gameplay then what's your issue? Players will pick encounter powers, monsters will act to avoid players getting optimum use from them, players will have to both pick powers that they'll get use out of and make tactical decisions to allow them to be used effectively.
Possibly you can give an example of exactly what isn't working for you?
I mean, look, I play a melee cleric in one game I'm in, around level 5. So just looking at his encounter powers, he's got only a couple of choices, and six rounds of combat, so he needs to choose when he's going to use those encounters (which rounds). He needs to choose who he's going to attack with them - Healing Strike, for instance, does some damage, so you'd want to hit the big guy, but if you miss you don't get the heal effect, so there's a trade-off between "easy to hit" and "guy I actually want to damage". And through all this he's got Righteous Brand, which is one of the biggest potential to-hit buffs in the early game, so your allies want you buffing up the strikers as often as possible. And all the time you're thinking, "Do I need to use my dailies or can we survive without them?" - because a lot of cleric dailies (Bless, Weapon of the Gods) are really only at maximum effectiveness if you use them early rather than late. And during all this I'm trying to get cover, trying to give flanking while avoiding flanking, staying in heal range of my buddies - there's a huge amount going on, tactically.
And then it gets even moreso at paragon tier. There's a lot more powers going on and monsters get more complex. I don't know if you've tried paragon tier - if not, give it a go, see how it feels.
Really, I can't see how it's not tactically interesting enough for you, in a way that messing with encounter powers is going to fix.
Really, I can't see how it's not tactically interesting enough for you, in a way that messing with encounter powers is going to fix.
Maybe its not, but at the very least I'll get to use more my PHB!
Seriously, I do find D&D pretty tactically light. The decisions are usually completely obvious or the difference between them so minuscule its irrelevant. Anything to add a little tactical spice or diversity would be good. When tactical gameplay was stated to be a design goal in 4e I was pumped, but then sad when it didn't show up.
However, I will say that I don't think there's a point to altering the way encounter powers work. Yes, everyone is going to pick the least situational power but I don't see a reasonable way to fix that. Personally, I think that doing some like giving players access to more at-will powers, like gaining an additional at-will every 5 or 10 levels to help cover "situational" situations would work. Players would still use the same 1 or 2 at-wills 90% of the time anyway. I think WotC would have to redo a good number of at-will powers to make it interesting though but frankly some classes are in desperate need of having their at-will's scraped and redesigned anyway.
His premise:
a) some Encounter powers are only useful in very specific situations and thus may not get used in every encounter.
b) Since encounter powers are better than At-Wills, a good character should choose Encounter powers that will get used every encounter.
c) Therefore, situational Encounter powers are often not chosen, therefore not used at all.
His solution:
a) For each level at which you would choose an Encounter power, chose two.
b) each encounter you can only choose one of those two powers to use.
It works - I do not know that it would change the balance of power all that much.
But that is only the case if Encounter powers are not weighted to account for their situational usefulness. If they are, then you will change the power level of characters as they will have still have the always useful (but weaker) Encounter powers AND the stronger (but situational) powers when the situation calls for it.
I have no desire to do an exhaustive evaluation of the Encounter powers to see if this is the case or not.
Ongorth's point is well taken and his solution is sound - if his premise holds.
His premise:
a) some Encounter powers are only useful in very specific situations and thus may not get used in every encounter.
b) Since encounter powers are better than At-Wills, a good character should choose Encounter powers that will get used every encounter.
c) Therefore, situational Encounter powers are often not chosen, therefore not used at all.
His solution:
a) For each level at which you would choose an Encounter power, chose two.
b) each encounter you can only choose one of those two powers to use.
It works - I do not know that it would change the balance of power all that much.
But that is only the case if Encounter powers are not weighted to account for their situational usefulness. If they are, then you will change the power level of characters as they will have still have the always useful (but weaker) Encounter powers AND the stronger (but situational) powers when the situation calls for it.
I have no desire to do an exhaustive evaluation of the Encounter powers to see if this is the case or not.
Well, unless either
a) every encounter power is equally useful in all situations.
or
b) one encounter power at each level is more powerful then all other choices in all situations.
the characters will be more powerful. I'm pretty sure neither of these things is true (and this entire aspect of the game would be tactically and strategically devoid if it were), so, yes, the character will be more powerful, though the amount they are is up for debate. To me, that's not a big issue. Encounters aren't balanced on some extremely precise scale, so if the characters are marginally more powerful, no big deal and if they are more then marginally more powerful, raise the encounter budget accordingly, no big deal.
I would also say that encounter powers seem fair enough, as do utilities. Which also may be a part to the problem: over balanced classes. The Dailies should be big and flashy if you can only do it once a day.
I think this is somewhat intended. You can choose the most generic at-wills and encounter powers in a vacuum and you will end up in the situation that the OP described. That's fine if you want to play a character whose schtick is brute force. But you can also choose at-wills based on how they interact with your encounter powers, and in my experience you will end up with a much more effective character, although you will have to think two or three turns ahead in order to use them well.
Though I guess it would help if you could give us an example where you encountered this problem. Then we could have a better idea of what's going on and how to help out. I don't think that allowing a player to choose one of two encounter powers is all that big a deal, but it may not fix your problem either. So a little more information could be helpful here. Part of using an encounter power is working the combat to make that encounter power work for you. Part of being a player is testing out the encounter powers and seeing which ones work best for you. I've played and DMed 4e. What I've found helps me choose useful encounter powers, as a player, is coming up with a concept or "gimmic" that my character has that guide me during power selection. Things like making a charger or building a character designed to break enemy lines. If the player has a more solid idea of what they want their character to do, power choice turns out a little better. Those encounter powers see more use because the player has an objective in mind to work towards instead of waiting for the situation to come up.
I think this is somewhat intended. You can choose the most generic at-wills and encounter powers in a vacuum and you will end up in the situation that the OP described. That's fine if you want to play a character whose schtick is brute force.
And somebody who sees nothing but the brute force option would, naturally, see the game as simplistic.
Cue Ongorth's usual fallacious arguments!
Personally, I think encounter powers are awesome. I have a bit of beef with daily powers though. It seems to encourage 10 minute workday, in my opinion. I would actually prefer it if they toned down dailies juuust a little bit, but made them "per milestone" instead.
Perhaps making dalies recharge after 3 or so milestones. It encourages players to keep going even after they've regained their action point(s).
One thing I have discovered is that some players with highly tactical minds can set up a situation where their encounter powers are most useful with a fair amount of reliability. Watching a warlock player wipe out half the enemies on the board in a few turns taught me that I was thinking about at-will powers wrong. Instead of picking what looked like the best at-wills, I should have been thinking about which at-wills will allow me to set up the board to get the most from my encounter powers.
I think this is somewhat intended. You can choose the most generic at-wills and encounter powers in a vacuum and you will end up in the situation that the OP described. That's fine if you want to play a character whose schtick is brute force. But you can also choose at-wills based on how they interact with your encounter powers, and in my experience you will end up with a much more effective character, although you will have to think two or three turns ahead in order to use them well.
I would certainly hope that they could set up advantageous situations and pick powers that compliment each other. I thought it would be assumed that people would do that.
And, really, if I was playing a party of four adventurers, that would be sufficient as between my four characters, I would be able to set up tons of different situations with the interactions between them. However, since I only control one character, my options are much more limited as to how I can contribute. D&D expects you to go through a lot of fights as you bring your character through the levels, so I think a little tactical variety would be helpful (and variety that doesn't require you to be able to predict the future like retraining!).
Honestly, if you think has sufficient tactical options, I wouldn't think that it is an indictment of my idea as much as a the personal the decision the my idea wouldn't be appropriate for you game.
Except for Vaelan. I love him so much that he can indictment whenever he wants!
1) Encounter powers are more or less better that at will powers, so you are going to use them every encounter regardless of the special effects they have since you can use them every encounter.
I don't find this to be true. I find that I do not use all of my encounter powers every encounter.
2) Since you use your encounter powers every encounter, you need to select them with the mindset that you will use them every encounter. This means that encounter powers that have high situational value need to be passed over for consistently useful ones if you are looking to make a "good" character. Which is a shamed because situational powers are often fun and would help create new strategic paths and more tactical options.
Since I do not use my encounter powers every encounter, I look at some encounter powers as reliable insurance that I can call upon every encounter if I need to. When I use those encounter powers that I do not end up using every single encounter, it feels a little more special when I do use them. It makes the encounter power feel a little cooler when I use them compared to those encounter powers I use every single encounter.
3) Because you are generally going to use every encounter power you have during every encounter your in anyway, the only tactical decision making to speak of when deciding to use your encounter values is if you will be able to set up a situation to milk the power in particular with the specifics of the encounter. You can't "do something different".
The situational encounter powers allow you some flexibility when making tactical situations. If you do have some type of a safety valve with a situational encounter power, you can do something different knowing you have an encounter power up your sleeve to take advantage of the situation. Because it is a situational power, you may be encouraged to do something within an encounter multiple times until you use that situational encounter power. Until you actually use your situational encounter power, the combat may be more dynamic instead of falling back on your more general encounter powers or at-wills.
4) Daily powers may help break the repetitiveness of you power usage, but since they are more powerful they often "need" to be saved for "important" encounters rather then used when their situational value is high or during a long, but easy fight to add some variety.
Situational encounter powers can do the same thing. The only difference is that you are able to use them every encounter. Once you blow your daily, your options are more limited in subsequent battles. With situational encounter powers, you "need" to save them for "important" rounds within an encounter in "every" encounter. The situational encounter powers can add variety to every encounter because they do not force you to always use them.
My Solution?
Have a pool of encounter powers. Every time you select an encounter power, select two instead. When use you an encounter power, you choose between them. This would help solve the problem I have with the side effect of making PCs more powerful. So, you can raise encounter budgets if things get easy.
Your thoughts? Would you use this option if presented? Does it have some major problems that destroy the game?
I think that your particular mindset is that you need to use every single encounter power or you will be unhappy. If a player does not like situational encounter powers or have the mindset that he does not want encounter powers unused, he would still not pick a situational encounter power. He would choose two encounter powers that are useful in general situations. Even if he picks a situational encounter power, he probably will not really use it. The power will be forgotten and left unused because he is always trying to setup to hit with his general encounter power. I just do not think that this solution really solves the problem for players who do not want to pick situational encounter powers.
You seem to be a player who is unhappy if any powers are left unused. For a player like you, just pick the encounter powers that you can use every encounter. This seems to make you happy.
For me, I ended up having encounter powers that I don't use every encounter. I even have an at-will that I haven't used every encounter. Although I do look for opportunities to use them, I am not pariticularly disappointed that I did not get a chance to use them. In those situations, other options are better at those particular times. When I do use them, I find that they have a higher coolness factor because those powers are not used every single encounter.
Maybe its not, but at the very least I'll get to use more my PHB!
I can understand the feeling that you want to use all of the PHB. The fact is that not all of the PHB is made for you. Yeah, there are character options (powers) in the player's handbook that you do not like. Well, that character option is not made for you. It's made for other players who like different things.
I would certainly hope that they could set up advantageous situations and pick powers that compliment each other. I thought it would be assumed that people would do that.
And, really, if I was playing a party of four adventurers, that would be sufficient as between my four characters, I would be able to set up tons of different situations with the interactions between them. However, since I only control one character, my options are much more limited as to how I can contribute. D&D expects you to go through a lot of fights as you bring your character through the levels, so I think a little tactical variety would be helpful (and variety that doesn't require you to be able to predict the future like retraining!).
I didn't realize that this was a rule specifically for a solo game. You should make that more clear in your OP. Most people assume there will be a party of adventurers at the table, not just one. If there is only one character in the game I could definitely see how that would be limiting.
You seem to be a player who is unhappy if any powers are left unused. For a player like you, just pick the encounter powers that you can use every encounter. This seems to make you happy.
I think its obvious that I disagree with this. If I was happy, why would I propose an alternative? Picking an encounter power that is always useful seems to be the superior choice to being successful at the game, but it isn't he most interesting. Why no create a situation where you can successful, have interesting options AND use more of your book?
I can understand the feeling that you want to use all of the PHB. The fact is that not all of the PHB is made for you. Yeah, there are character options (powers) in the player's handbook that you do not like. Well, that character option is not made for you. It's made for other players who like different things.
But, if a slight change to the rules suddenly makes those options likable, wouldn't that be an improvement? I don't expect to enjoy or even utilize every conceivable ounce of gameplay to every game I have, but that said I don't see why its desirable to just toss parts out at first sign of resistance, particularly if you enjoy the game and want to get the most out of it.
I didn't realize that this was a rule specifically for a solo game. You should make that more clear in your OP. Most people assume there will be a party of adventurers at the table, not just one. If there is only one character in the game I could definitely see how that would be limiting.
Its not. I'm talking about the difference between one player playing 4 characters and 4 players playing one character each. If I have 4 characters, I have sufficient options. WIth only one, I think the encounter powers are too limited.
Its not. I'm talking about the difference between one player playing 4 characters and 4 players playing one character each. If I have 4 characters, I have sufficient options. WIth only one, I think the encounter powers are too limited.
Then you should make it clear that you do not play cooperatively with your group. This is for PvP then? Because if there are four players and they are working together, there should be four characters working together, which you have just said would provide sufficient options.
Also, if you agree that you can use at-wills to reliably set up the situations where your encounter powers are most useful, where is the problem?
If you just want more options for the hell of it, then you can probably make the change without much risk. In fact, you could probably just allow people to choose on the fly which encounter power of each level they would like to use and the game would still work. Your characters would be less developed mechanically, but if you don't care about linking RP to mechanics that shouldn't be a problem.
I think we are confused because we really haven't noticed the same problems you have. Can you give an example of a situational encounter power that is obviously not as useful as a general encounter power?
The only powers that are guaranteed to always be available to you are At-Will powers. Therefore, it only makes sense to perform some optimization such that you get great use out of your at-will powers. An illusion-focused wizard with Illusory Ambush and a bit of White Lotus can inflict the following effects, at-will:
* Damage, at range
* -2 to attack rolls
* Grants combat advantage to you until your EoNT
* Grants combat advantage to the next ally that attacks it before your EoNT
* Treats every square adjacent to all allies as difficult terrain
* If you miss, attack another enemy within 3 with the same attack at a big bonus
Quite honestly, there aren't a lot of encounter powers that can measure up to that! So go wild with situationals.
I think its obvious that I disagree with this. If I was happy, why would I propose an alternative? Picking an encounter power that is always useful seems to be the superior choice to being successful at the game, but it isn't he most interesting. Why no create a situation where you can successful, have interesting options AND use more of your book?
Your proposed solution will probably still do not address one of your issues which is you would not choose a situational power.
But, if a slight change to the rules suddenly makes those options likable, wouldn't that be an improvement? I don't expect to enjoy or even utilize every conceivable ounce of gameplay to every game I have, but that said I don't see why its desirable to just toss parts out at first sign of resistance, particularly if you enjoy the game and want to get the most out of it.
Your proposed changes do not necessarily improve the game for everyone. I find that there does seem like enough variety in combat as it is. Doubling the number of encounter powers players need to keep track of probably is not an improvement to everyone, particularly if the use of one encounter power now eliminates the use of a second one. Some players may not feel the extra bookkeeping required is worth that extra flexibility.
If you feel that your proposed changes will enable you (and your group) to enjoy the game more, then ask your DM implement it. I personally do not feel that this change is that beneficial to my particular group. A portion of our players are not so into the tactical combat aspect of D&D. The additional bookkeeping required is likely going to make things more difficult for some of them that it is not worth the flexibility of a second encounter power choice at every level.
I saw a bit of this when we first started playing 4e: several of the characters had situational encounter powers, Fox's Cunning being one of them. When Fox's Cunning is your [i]only[/] encounter power it feels a little weak, not because it's not powerful, but because you have to wait for it to be triggered.
However, once the characters started getting up in levels it became less and less of an issue because the character had another EP or two to draw on.
Then you should make it clear that you do not play cooperatively with your group. This is for PvP then? Because if there are four players and they are working together, there should be four characters working together, which you have just said would provide sufficient options.
I'm not sure I agree. If four characters have enough interesting gameplay options for one person playing them all, then they also have enough gameplay options when split amongst 4 people? This is reminds me of debates about "Last Night on Earth" advertising itself to be a game from 2-6 players. In the 6 player game, two players split the zombies and zombie cards between them, doing the exact same thing one play would do with them. Everyone who's ever played the game says that there simply isn't enough gameplay for two people to share the zombies and it makes the game boring for both players involved. Saying the game supports 6 players is great for marketting, but isn't really true. The "problem" in D&D isn't as big: 4e is still relatively interesting, it just seems to me it could be more interesting.
If you just want more options for the hell of it, then you can probably make the change without much risk. In fact, you could probably just allow people to choose on the fly which encounter power of each level they would like to use and the game would still work. Your characters would be less developed mechanically, but if you don't care about linking RP to mechanics that shouldn't be a problem.
I don't see what the "linking" problem is. If a character can shoot a fireball, why can't he shoot a lightning bolt instead sometimes?
I'm not sure I agree. If four characters have enough interesting gameplay options for one person playing them all, then they also have enough gameplay options when split amongst 4 people? This is reminds me of debates about "Last Night on Earth" advertising itself to be a game from 2-6 players. In the 6 player game, two players split the zombies and zombie cards between them, doing the exact same thing one play would do with them. Everyone who's ever played the game says that there simply isn't enough gameplay for two people to share the zombies and it makes the game boring for both players involved. Saying the game supports 6 players is great for marketting, but isn't really true. The "problem" in D&D isn't as big: 4e is still relatively interesting, it just seems to me it could be more interesting.
The whole idea in DnD is that you work tactically with your teammates. Working with other people in order to increase your options is the very point of the game. If your teammate has the option, then you also have the option. If this were a single player game, then increasing the options of an individual character would be the only available way to increase the options on the board. The designers of 4e quite clearly took the attitude that it is better to increase the options of the team rather than the individual. I think a lot of people find this cooperation to be the most satisfying part of the game. You seem to be arguing that it is restrictive on the individual to have to work with three other players to get the most out of their character.
This is perfectly fine. Different people value different aspects of gaming. It's just that a party of four characters already has four encounter powers that, working together, they can almost certainly make the most of, no matter how situational (well, there is a limit). If you feel like there is no way for an individual to use certain powers effectively, but there would be if there were three other characters on the board, then my response is, "There are already three other characters on the board, so what's the problem?" I think the more you make a single character able to rely on having enough options all by himself to find his way out of any situation, the less teamwork is encouraged.
As I said, I have not seen this problem with some encounter powers being useless, as long as you choose powers with synergies and/or rely on others to help you set up the situation right. But maybe I have just not seen the right powers in play, which is why I asked for an example.
I don't see what the "linking" problem is. If a character can shoot a fireball, why can't he shoot a lightning bolt instead sometimes?
Because maybe he can't? The guy who can shoot a fireball may be a different guy than the one who can shoot a fireball and lightening. The ranger who is decent with a bow but pulls out his wicked swords for his best moves is different from the ranger who is equally effective with the sword and bow all the time. Some people really, really like their mechanics to reflect their character concept (see all the reflavoring threads where somebody asks if they should change damage types because their wizard wants more frost powers, for example). Some people don't care. Some people will simply limit themselves to only using the powers they feel are appropriate for the character regardless of what's available. If your players aren't the same players who complain incessantly about how their rogue can't be better at lockpicking than trap disarming, then you will probably be fine.
I'm not sure I agree. If four characters have enough interesting gameplay options for one person playing them all, then they also have enough gameplay options when split amongst 4 people?
...
The "problem" in D&D isn't as big: 4e is still relatively interesting, it just seems to me it could be more interesting.
I tried to play a party of 4 characters at level 1 once just to try out the 4E system when it came out. I got fed up after the 2nd round as there was just too much to keep track of for me. If you are one who can control multiple characters in a party, then perhaps 4E just isn't complex enough for you. I would say you are probably in the minority of players who are not satisfied with the number tactical options available. For me, I think it's plenty.
The other thing is that at least with my group, is the actions of other players make for interesting tactical options. Even though I am not playing the other characters, what the other player chooses to do presents different tactical options for me. You don't play your character in a vacuum. You interact with the other PC's (along with the enemy and environment). What the other PC's choose to do with their actions create variety in terms of what I then choose to do with my actions. Even though you do not actively control the other PC's or choose their builds, what they do creates more variety in combat.
You seem to be arguing that it is restrictive on the individual to have to work with three other players to get the most out of their character.
I disagree. Having more options as an individual doesn't limit the options you have as a team. If so, wouldn't it follow that 4e characters should have less options so encourage teamwork? Are utility powers a bad mechanic because they eliminate the need for teamwork? I don't think that's so.
This is perfectly fine. Different people value different aspects of gaming. It's just that a party of four characters already has four encounter powers that, working together, they can almost certainly make the most of, no matter how situational (well, there is a limit). If you feel like there is no way for an individual to use certain powers effectively, but there would be if there were three other characters on the board, then my response is, "There are already three other characters on the board, so what's the problem?" I think the more you make a single character able to rely on having enough options all by himself to find his way out of any situation, the less teamwork is encouraged.
I don't think having a choice of powers is going to make it so a single character is "able to rely on having enough options all by himself to find his way out of any situation". That's just not how powers in 4e are designed.
Because maybe he can't?
But maybe he can and the current way in which 4e prevents the player from depicting the character they want. I can't see this as anything other then a toss up.
I would say you are probably in the minority of players who are not satisfied with the number tactical options available.
That's fine. I'm designing something for me to use and just throwing it out there so that other people might benefit, not because I expect most people have the exact same issues I do.
Almost every encounter power I can think of is pretty general in terms of usefulness. Personally, I tend to look for powers that will fill a gap for my character rather than just picking something that is stronger than my at-will powers but fills the same function.
Not sure what kind of powers you're talking about.
I don't find that the premise holds for a well-built character.
The only powers that are guaranteed to always be available to you are At-Will powers. Therefore, it only makes sense to perform some optimization such that you get great use out of your at-will powers. An illusion-focused wizard with Illusory Ambush and a bit of White Lotus can inflict the following effects, at-will:
* Damage, at range
* -2 to attack rolls
* Grants combat advantage to you until your EoNT
* Grants combat advantage to the next ally that attacks it before your EoNT
* Treats every square adjacent to all allies as difficult terrain
* If you miss, attack another enemy within 3 with the same attack at a big bonus
Quite honestly, there aren't a lot of encounter powers that can measure up to that! So go wild with situationals.
It seems to me that "optimize your at-wills" and "use more abilities from books I don't have" isn't a solution to my problem.
If you are optimizing your character to make his at-wills more useful then his encounter powers, this means you will only be using your encounter power when its situational value comes up. If you had two encounter powers to chose from, you could have two situationals that double the chance you'd get to use your situational powers and double the chance to try to set up interesting situations with them. Indeed, double is probably an understatement since all your teammates will also another (situational) encounter power, creating all kinds of oppurtunities for awesome stuff. Its hard to imagine a combat becoming dull as the players work with trying to set up all kinds of combos.
Go wild with situationals! GENIUS! Thanks for the support!
Playtesting begins asap!
I disagree. Having more options as an individual doesn't limit the options you have as a team. If so, wouldn't it follow that 4e characters should have less options so encourage teamwork? Are utility powers a bad mechanic because they eliminate the need for teamwork? I don't think that's so.
That's correct. The fewer options you have available individually, the more you have to rely on the group. Obviously each class needs enough abilities to contribute to the group, but going beyond that lessens your reliance on others and increases your independence.
That said, you misstated my premise. I did not say that increasing the options of the individual decreases the options of the group. In fact, you will be increasing the options of the group by an order of magnitude. What I said was that fewer options encourage more teamwork, a very different argument.
I don't think having a choice of powers is going to make it so a single character is "able to rely on having enough options all by himself to find his way out of any situation". That's just not how powers in 4e are designed.
It's going to significantly increase his ability to do so. If you have to choose between a power that does max damage and a power that saves your bacon when your surrounded, you have to rely on other characters to do what you gave up the ability to do. If you can do both, then you have less reliance on your group and less of a need to plan careful strategies with your allies, and more opportunity to improvise your way out of situations. Again, I'm not saying any of this is bad or undesirable. In some groups, where you don't know the players ahead of time, it might make the game go from an extremely difficult slog to a lot of fun.
But maybe he can and the current way in which 4e prevents the player from depicting the character they want. I can't see this as anything other then a toss up.
In the current system, he would just take a fire power at one level and a lightning power at another. (Although the wizard, of course, can swap his spells each day so he doesn't have to worry about this. I'm assuming you're referring to all of the other classes.)
You can't look at the gnashing of teeth over the thievery skill and not think that this will be a problem for some players. If those players aren't your players, then it doesn't matter. We don't know your group, so we're just making general comments about your idea. These aren't attacks. We're just being honest about how we, as players, would feel about this change. If our views are not representative of your players' views, then it doesn't matter. If you've pitched this to your players and they also have misgivings, then you should be talking to them, not us.
But I really think an example would help clarify a bit.
That said, you misstated my premise. I did not say that increasing the options of the individual decreases the options of the group. In fact, you will be increasing the options of the group by an order of magnitude. What I said was that fewer options encourage more teamwork, a very different argument.
My apologies.
Thinking all of the cooperative games I've played (which isn't that many), I'm not sure if this is true. Hero Quest has less options then D&D 4e, but I wouldn't say it requires more teamwork. The power of the options involved is also significant as well as the degree to which they work better when combined with other actions. If I have many options that contribute to solving problems (but aren't sufficient on their own) I will require more teamwork then if I have one option that solves a type of problem by itself (that wouldn't be teamwork as much as players taking turns winning situations). I don't think even a situational perfect encounter power solves an encounter situation by itself. Not even close and definitely not nearly as well as two characters working together to do so.
It's going to significantly increase his ability to do so.
If it does, we add to the encounter budget to compensate. This way the characters will be forced to solve tougher problems, which will again require them to find synergies between their powers defeat the encounters as their individual powers won't be sufficient.
You can't look at the gnashing of teeth over the thievery skill and not think that this will be a problem for some players.
I'm not familiar with this issue, could you explain it to me?
My apologies.
Thinking all of the cooperative games I've played (which isn't that many), I'm not sure if this is true. Hero Quest has less options then D&D 4e, but I wouldn't say it requires more teamwork. The power of the options involved is also significant as well as the degree to which they work better when combined with other actions. If I have many options that contribute to solving problems (but aren't sufficient on their own) I will require more teamwork then if I have one option that solves a type of problem by itself (that wouldn't be teamwork as much as players taking turns winning situations). I don't think even a situational perfect encounter power solves an encounter situation by itself. Not even close and definitely not nearly as well as two characters working together to do so.
Hero Quest (if I'm thinking of the right game) is a pitiful mockery of something that could be called a game system. It's DnD for people under 8. But maybe I'm thinking of the wrong game.
Anyway, I'm not talking about other systems. I'm pretty sure I never said anything about Hero Quest. I'm talking about DnD 4e. With the options that characters have, flanking, shifting enemies so the defender can mark more, granting extra attacks as a leader, doing max damage as a rogue all have a certain value. If the fighter has to choose between a power that lets him attack two targets and therefore mark two enemies and a power that increases his damage, he has to rely on his teammates to fill in the gap. He needs a warlord to grant extra attacks so that he can make the most of his mark if he concentrates on damage and a rogue to do more damage if he concentrates on drawing enemy fire. If he can choose the power on the fly, then he is far less reliant on the rogue and the warlord. Sure, they could still work together, and they will be far more effective if they do, but they don't need to nearly as much. Working together is supposed to be some of the challenge of the game. If you were to reduce the fighter's options, then he would be even more reliant on that rogue's damage and that warlord's extra attacks.
This only really matters depending on your players. Some parties will work together anyway because they think it's fun. Some parties will never work together even if it means dying every other encounter.
If it does, we add to the encounter budget to compensate. This way the characters will be forced to solve tougher problems, which will again require them to find synergies between their powers defeat the encounters as their individual powers won't be sufficient.
That won't solve the problem I'm talking about. This will make the problems bigger, not more interesting. You're not making characters (much) more powerful, you're just giving them the option to think less. Making combat more challenging will just mean that they are thinking less and also resting after every encounter.
But maybe I don't fully understand what you're talking about. Could you provide an example of power that you would take, but only as a backup option?
I'm not familiar with this issue, could you explain it to me?
Apparently back in 3.5 a lot of people used to play rogues who were exceptional at picking locks but horrible at disarming traps, or vice versa, and they felt that this imbalance in ability was crucial to their character concepts. These people are mad as hell that thievery is now one skill instead of five. There are also people who simply cannot accept that running and swimming key off of them same skill, because apparently they used to like to play champion swimmers who could never run faster than a jog or marathon runners who grew up in the desert. These people need mechanical restrictions or else they feel that their character concept simply crumbles. No matter how many times you explain to them that they can simply not attempt the check if they are so sure their character would be unable to do something, they will wail and moan and, for some reason, repost their complaint on the 4e boards every month or so along with a lengthy rant about how true roleplayers would never play 4e and all of us 4e players are meathead jock munchkins who don't know how to properly play DnD.
If the fighter has to choose between a power that lets him attack two targets and therefore mark two enemies and a power that increases his damage, he has to rely on his teammates to fill in the gap. He needs a warlord to grant extra attacks so that he can make the most of his mark if he concentrates on damage and a rogue to do more damage if he concentrates on drawing enemy fire. If he can choose the power on the fly, then he is far less reliant on the rogue and the warlord. Sure, they could still work together, and they will be far more effective if they do, but they don't need to nearly as much. Working together is supposed to be some of the challenge of the game. If you were to reduce the fighter's options, then he would be even more reliant on that rogue's damage and that warlord's extra attacks.
But by raising the difficulty, the teamwork challenge shifts. The characters are still reliant each other because the number of actions are limited and the selection of powers is still extremely limited. If the fighter can either mark two opponents or do a lot of damage, he can't use both powers in the same round. The tactical puzzle becomes deciding which resource from which character to use in the given situation to give the best result when used in combination with another resource from a different character. By increasing the difficulty, you become more reliant on each other because if your teamwork isn't good, you'll get killed. Its not about working together, its about making the best plan together. Giving characters more options increases the playbook of the characters and ways the characters can improvise when situations dictate that their usual plans won't work. It stops being a question of if they can handle a challenge to if they'll figure out how to handle it, which to me is the much more interesting question. The nature of encounter powers and classes and how powers are given to characters seems to ensure that the characters will need each other even if they have slight increase in flexibility.
I am still waiting for an example. If we could talk about a specific combo, I might see more clearly what you are trying to say. I'm not sure I can offer any more until we are on the same page. Right now you have an advantage in this conversation because, I assume, you are thinking of a specific power that would be devastating in a very specific situation, and which you had to bypass because another power of that level was useful in more situations. In my estimation, powers with more requirements are more powerful when those requirements are met, while powers that can be used with less forethought are less effective overall.
Players who take the power with more requirements to be met will have to work more closely with their allies to ensure that they get the most out of them. Players that take powers with fewer requirements don't have to work as closely with allies but will be less effective overall. This gives you the option of building a character who is devastating as part of a team or a character who is very good on his own. Your proposed change would allow characters to be both at once. But if the players don't see the benefits of these more restricted powers already, and if they are not currently capable of working as a team to get the most out of them, what makes you think they will start?
Simply adding more monsters to make the game more challenging is something that you could already do. The upper limit of encounter difficulty won't change too much, because both options already exist and are accounted for by the system. But if your players are only making use of one of the options, why would they suddenly see the value of meticulously setting up the field just because they have more options individually now? Won't they just take the next most generic power, after the one that they already have?
You've successfully summed up the point of encounter powers. This is exactly how they're intended to operate. You're not supposed to be picking powers you won't get a lot of use out of - that's what utility powers are, in part, for. I'm willing to entertain an argument that utility powers don't fulfill their purpose, but that's their problem, it's not an issue with encounters.
I disagree. The fact that situational encounter powers exist disproves your statement. 4ed is balanced so that you can take these more limited powers in the name of RP or whatever and still be just fine.
It seems to me that "optimize your at-wills" and "use more abilities from books I don't have" isn't a solution to my problem.
Well, I can see how the latter would fail to be a solution in your specific case, but I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the former, and I didn't see anything in your post that elaborates on that. At any rate, if your intent is to make use of house rules to make up for existing game content that you don't have access to, I guess there's no problem with that.
If you are optimizing your character to make his at-wills more useful then his encounter powers, this means you will only be using your encounter power when its situational value comes up. If you had two encounter powers to chose from, you could have two situationals that double the chance you'd get to use your situational powers and double the chance to try to set up interesting situations with them. Indeed, double is probably an understatement since all your teammates will also another (situational) encounter power, creating all kinds of oppurtunities for awesome stuff. Its hard to imagine a combat becoming dull as the players work with trying to set up all kinds of combos.
And then the game becomes a lot easier. I see from other reading that your solution is then to ramp up the difficulty of combat encounters. I find myself suspecting that the primary way to do this will involve making use of monsters, terrain, and/or combinations thereof that render potent situational player combos less effective. This then takes us back to the starting point.
It seems to me that a much easier solution would be to make use of more combat structures that reward the selection of various situational powers. The DM has nearly complete control over the situation, after all. You can ramp up the complexity and variety of terrain effects and monster powers to create heavily tactical near-puzzle combat encounters.
I personally find this a superior method to doubling player encounter power choices for two reasons. One, it's less stuff for players to track. By paragon tier, players are already managing a ton of powers -- from items, classes, and paths, there are power cards all over the place. I have nearly 20 of them at level 16. Doubling my set of encounter cards certainly wouldn't make my life easier. Two, it'll slow down combat. Players will have a new layer of difficulty in selecting powers to use, which will slow down individual turns. This may be precisely what your group needs, of course, if everyone finds that their turns are automatic and obvious. Still, I suspect that better encounter creation would temper this.
so its not unthinkable to have no encounters.
- Situational Encounter powers happen a lot more often then you think they do. Having played a Sword Mage and a Barbarian, the Charge and Counterattack encounter powers have never, ever not been used during the course of a game. Sure, they seem situational, but in reality, they really are not. The circumstances are easy to set up, and happen a lot.
- People horde Dailies on a paranoia level. The actual time difference to defeat a foe without a daily is about a turn or two, which the players typically can live through anyway.
- Part of the issue with Dailies is that players are taught by the system at an early level till 5th level that they only get one shot with it, so they better make it count. Because they are a more precious resource then Encounters, they are used less often.
- A house rule solution, if you want one, is to give Dailies earlier. By giving it at 4th level, and placing them before the constant Encounter Powers in progression, you might give the impression that Daily Powers are alright to use, as you now have 2 Dailys, and only one encounter attack power to use. I feel this would encourage players to use their Dailies more often, and place less emphasis on the Encounters.
- With Feat use, even Area Effect spells that should be Situational don't have to be. War Wizard, among others that I don't have the energy to find this morning, help negate the penalty for having allies in AOE's. This helps in the long run.
...
While I don't like to see players get into a rutt, I think that players who choose 'safe' powers over 'situational' powers tend to be people who would play it safe anyway. You won't see them placing themselves into situations where they would use the situational powers, because they don't want to be in them. This might be a frustration for you as a DM, and might be why you want to encourage them into using other powers, but I think that if you want to change their thinking, you need to lead by example.
Let someone else run for a while, and run a class that is heavy in Situational Powers (I recommend Barbarian or Swordmage), and run it like a lunatic. Use a Daily in the first Fight. Use all those powers that are better when you are performing a specific action. By showing players that it can be as much fun to play 'unsafe' as it is to play 'safe', then you can get them to come out of the turtleshell and play with a little more risk.
Perhaps I'm a bit harsh - but my thought is - too bad, it happens, often.
My current party happens to be very fire-heavy. This has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the characters (the dreaded RP aspect). Does it make some encounters more difficult? Yes, it does - and funny enough, those are some of the more-oft recounted tales.
Someone wrote something about using either fire or lightning - the truth is, my characters wouldn't. (there's a period there) They would never have wanted to touch that source of energy, less learn it. As someone later pointed out - if you wanted, you could - but you'd have to want to, and take the time (read: opportunity cost - learn this, but you can't learn something else) to learn it..
Maybe it's because I was a horrid training stickler in the older versions (training for each and every character was played out through the game, and added many encounters, combat and non-combat, as well as a tremendous amount to the storyline), but I don't believe in "instant knowledge". In fact, I'm working now on getting my old-style training requirements into the new 4e mechanics. As such - you can have knowledge of 2x the encounters, but it would take twice the _____ (fill the blank in with everything concerned - time, money, finding a teacher and all that entails, etc). Of course 4e handles this by waiting until 5th to give you the second encounter power.
Anyhow - that's my opinion (and playstyle) - As has been stated - you know your group better. They (and/or perhaps you) sound more tactical driven than character-driven (or at least, that is what the thread has led me to believe). As such - as you are their DM - they can have it if you give it to them.
And then the game becomes a lot easier. I see from other reading that your solution is then to ramp up the difficulty of combat encounters. I find myself suspecting that the primary way to do this will involve making use of monsters, terrain, and/or combinations thereof that render potent situational player combos less effective. This then takes us back to the starting point.
If the problem was "encounters are two easy" or "player combos aren't effective enough", then we'd be back to the starting point. Making players "most potent" combos less effective (ie the ones they take under the current arrangement of encounter powers) and thus forcing them to discover new combinations from there now increased pool of options is exactly what I want to do.
If the problem was "encounters are two easy" or "player combos aren't effective enough", then we'd be back to the starting point. Making players "most potent" combos less effective (ie the ones they take under the current arrangement of encounter powers) and thus forcing them to discover new combinations from there now increased pool of options is exactly what I want to do.
But your players aren't taking the most potent powers, according to your OP. They're taking the most generic. The most potent combos rely on carefully manipulating the game board and relying on your team. The encounter powers you say your players are taking are not part of combos – at least not as powerful combos. If you want to force players to work together to make more powerful combos, you can just ramp up the difficulty without changing the rules. If you ramp up the difficulty of encounters and also change the rules, you'll just end up with players using the combos that are already available, just as if you never changed the rules in the first place. At least that is our perspective. But again, please give an example because otherwise I am afraid we are all talking about different things here.
But your players aren't taking the most potent powers, according to your OP. They're taking the most generic. The most potent combos rely on carefully manipulating the game board and relying on your team. The encounter powers you say your players are taking are not part of combos – at least not as powerful combos. If you want to force players to work together to make more powerful combos, you can just ramp up the difficulty without changing the rules. If you ramp up the difficulty of encounters and also change the rules, you'll just end up with players using the combos that are already available, just as if you never changed the rules in the first place. At least that is our perspective. But again, please give an example because otherwise I am afraid we are all talking about different things here.
That's not what I said at all. I said they were picking ones that could be effective most often (as opposed to most potentially effective, but won't come up as often). I said nothing about whether or not they take into account their team in the op, and later clarified that they do take into their team:
I would certainly hope that they could set up advantageous situations and pick powers that compliment each other. I thought it would be assumed that people would do that.
I mean, using your team is the gameplay of 4e. If you aren't doing that, it seems hard to imagine enjoying or even wanting to play it.
Anyway, since you've asked 10 times, I'll give an example. I didn't want to, because examples never help, but I feel I owe you for your feedback and dedication.
Let's say I have a level 1 cleric. For his encounter power, I think Healing Strike, because I think I'll be able to use it most often and most effectively. However, in my party make up it seems that Cause Fear would be great in some great combinations, but I can't see picking it because of all the times it won't be very useful, especially if my Strength exceeds my Wisdom.
The choice of which to take is interesting and should change the abilities your allies will take, but its purely a strategic choice, with the tactical element of getting the most use out of it on the map. If you have to pick between the two during combat, its still a strategic choice (as their are more then two encounter powers to chose from), but but much more of a tactical choice of how to best approach the situations. You can't merely chose "which of my powers is best for the situation?", but rather "which combination of all the characters in the party's powers are best for the situation". And then you still of the tactical element of getting the most use out of it on the map. To me, that's delicious, the exact kind of elements that make 4e a potentially great game.
Kensan_Osi: I also think dailies aren't perfect. An encounter number based refresh rate rather then "days end" sound superior. There is a much bigger motivation to use your daily if you know it won't reset until # encounters rather then knowing that you can just wait the the last encounter and have it ready for the next one.
1) Encounter powers are more or less better that at will powers, so you are going to use them every encounter regardless of the special effects they have since you can use them every encounter.
This is why they exist. You are, in fact, supposed to use them every encounter. Why is this?
Because it:
1) Adds tactical diversity.
2) Increases character power.
3) Makes them more interesting.
4) Makes them more exciting.
5) Keeps a much more consistant power level.
6) Is fun.
7) Adds variety.
2) Since you use your encounter powers every encounter, you need to select them with the mindset that you will use them every encounter. This means that encounter powers that have high situational value need to be passed over for consistently useful ones if you are looking to make a "good" character. Which is a shamed because situational powers are often fun and would help create new strategic paths and more tactical options.
And they are designed with this thought in mind.
Utility powers do not have to be useful every combat, nor do daily powers. Encounter attack powers do.
This isn't a bad thing. This is a good thing. You just don't understand it.
3) Because you are generally going to use every encounter power you have during every encounter your in anyway, the only tactical decision making to speak of when deciding to use your encounter values is if you will be able to set up a situation to milk the power in particular with the specifics of the encounter. You can't "do something different".
Two problems with this argument:
1) The encounter power IS doing something different. You seem to have missed this rather obvious point.
2) There already are daily powers which fulfill other tactical choice requirements.
4) Daily powers may help break the repetitiveness of you power usage, but since they are more powerful they often "need" to be saved for "important" encounters rather then used when their situational value is high or during a long, but easy fight to add some variety.
I'm sorry, you don't understand encounter powers.
Encounter powers exist precisely to break up the monotony of using an at-will power round after round.
You claim to understand them, but you do not.
And when it IS a really, really awesome tactical situation in which to use a daily, often using it is in fact the right choice, as it saves you other resources.
Understanding something isn't the same thing as accepting it.
Encounter powers exist precisely to break up the monotony of using an at-will power round after round.
Oh so that's why my encounters were getting monotonous. I was using my at-will powers round after round never using my encounter powers. Thanks for the advice.
Seriously???
I love Titanium Dragon and his amazingly ironic posts. Thanks for gracing my thread by talking about something that bears no relevance to what I wrote.
Understanding something isn't the same thing as accepting it.
Oh so that's why my encounters were getting monotonous. I was using my at-will powers round after round never using my encounter powers. Thanks for the advice.
Seriously???
you sure know how to encourage intelligent conversation.
Onto my contribution!
No I dont think its a good idea I would not use it, and no i dont think it will break the game.
You can do what you want.
you sure know how to encourage intelligent conversation.
Did you read his post? You could just as easily had quoted him and said the same thing.
Perhaps I should have quoted him and said the same thing.
Oh well, I like what I posted. I'll keep it.
Did you read his post? You could just as easily had quoted him and said the same thing.
Perhaps I should have quoted him and said the same thing.
Oh well, I like what I posted. I'll keep it.
What you are essentially describing is kinda what the Psion does in the new release. They have a pool of Atwills that they can augment with a pool of points to make their atwill more powerful per encounter.
Try it out i think you'd like the versitility.
It might be what your looking for.
That's not what I said at all. I said they were picking ones that could be effective most often (as opposed to most potentially effective, but won't come up as often). I said nothing about whether or not they take into account their team in the op, and later clarified that they do take into their team:
They are obviously not taking their team into account. With a varied team, just about whatever situation is necessary for the most potentially effective power to be used can be set up very reliably. The fact that your players feel it necessary to take those powers that require the fewest preconditions shows that they have not considered the possibilities of teamwork.
I mean, using your team is the gameplay of 4e. If you aren't doing that, it seems hard to imagine enjoying or even wanting to play it.
If you're working together and using your team, you should be able to make use of all of your encounter powers almost every combat, no matter how restrictive or situational they are, assuming the power was designed well.
Anyway, since you've asked 10 times, I'll give an example. I didn't want to, because examples never help, but I feel I owe you for your feedback and dedication.
You're countering our points by insisting that you are right and we are wrong, over and over again. At some point you need to show that using an example. Otherwise this whole thread was a waste of time and space.
Let's say I have a level 1 cleric. For his encounter power, I think Healing Strike, because I think I'll be able to use it most often and most effectively. However, in my party make up it seems that Cause Fear would be great in some great combinations, but I can't see picking it because of all the times it won't be very useful, especially if my Strength exceeds my Wisdom.
I'm not seeing why cause fear wouldn't be useful. It's as simple as flanking the enemy and casting it so that he charges into your party, taking three or four or more opportunity attacks. That's not even a difficult one to use. If it is less useful than healing strike because it is less likely to hit, that won't change by allowing you to take two encounter powers. If your strength is 16 and your wisdom is 14, you'll most likely take Wrathful Thunder as your second power, anyway.
Healing strike is only useful when you have an ally who needs healing and when you are healthy enough to take an attack yourself. That situation is likely to come up all on its own. But Cause Fear may let you kill an enemy in a single round, provided you work with your teammates to set up the OAs. There should be no problem doing that if you are working tactically with your allies. Like, at all.
The choice of which to take is interesting and should change the abilities your allies will take, but its purely a strategic choice, with the tactical element of getting the most use out of it on the map. If you have to pick between the two during combat, its still a strategic choice (as their are more then two encounter powers to chose from), but but much more of a tactical choice of how to best approach the situations. You can't merely chose "which of my powers is best for the situation?", but rather "which combination of all the characters in the party's powers are best for the situation". And then you still of the tactical element of getting the most use out of it on the map. To me, that's delicious, the exact kind of elements that make 4e a potentially great game.
But this dynamic is already in play, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Players with two choices of encounter power can be more reactive, which means there is less incentive to work out careful strategies because each individual is more adaptive. If you haven't managed to get yourself into position to cast Cause Fear yet and an ally is damaged, you can use healing strike. It just means it's less important to work together to make cause fear useful, which is all I've been trying to say.
If you value that adaptability over tactical precision, that's fine. As I said earlier, if you are joining a party and you don't know the other characters or other players, that adaptability may well save your life. It's not really necessary if you work closely with your team, though, because you should be able to manipulate the board to get the most out of whichever power you prefer.
Actually what you could do is strip down all encounter powers to atwills and reduce their damage by a die and maybe step down a condition and then make them augmentable.
It might be what your looking for.
That's a neat idea. Unfortunately, it requires a lot more work then my solution (which requires no work), so I might not try it any time soon. I'll have to look at the Psion one day as well.
Here's hoping they keep trying to stretch the design space out as the edition continues!
That's a neat idea. Unfortunately, it requires a lot more work then my solution (which requires no work), so I might not try it any time soon. I'll have to look at the Psion one day as well.
Here's hoping they keep trying to stretch the design space out as the edition continues!
While I applaud you in your effort to make your game better for you I still dont understand your problem. I probably wont because I feel comfortable with the Atwill, Encounter and daily powers and I havent heard a peep out of our entire group.
So, like i said. No I wouldn't use your method, I personally see it as fussy, a bit powergamerish and unnecessary.
But whatever floats your boat.
You dont want to choose between the two.
If you're working together and using your team, you should be able to make use of all of your encounter powers almost every combat, no matter how restrictive or situational they are, assuming the power was designed well.
Of course you can make use of them. But I'm talking about a difference between use and best use. More options means its harder to find the best use because not only does the character have more options, the party has more combinations of options to mull over.
You're countering our points by insisting that you are right and we are wrong, over and over again. At some point you need to show that using an example. Otherwise this whole thread was a waste of time and space.
Two major things here. First, I am right. This is a problem for me. It might not be a problem for anyone else in the universe, but it is for me. Trying to tell me I'm wrong for trying to address a problem that isn't there is fruitless. Whether the problem is based on reality or completely in delusion and emotion is irrelevant to me.
Secondly, I'm not countering any points. I'm clarifying mine. What do I gain by countering points? Prestige?
Anyway, thanks to the people who gave suggestions!
I think i also get fiunally what your trying to get at, you want two encounters. One being the solo power that you can use on your own and the second being the "team" power.
You dont want to choose between the two.
Not necessarily. As Solik suggested you can also "go nuts with situationals" which is an idea I adore. What I'd like is the more options so that I can take powers other then the one that's most reliable. And also to create more super awesome combos.
Solo versus team is entirely irrelevant, although since your the second person to mention it I must be saying something wrong. . .
So, like i said. No I wouldn't use your method, I personally see it as fussy, a bit powergamerish and unnecessary.
Well, I've never been called powergamerish before, but fussy and unnecessary do sound a lot like me!
Not necessarily. As Solik suggested you can also "go nuts with situationals" which is an idea I adore. What I'd like is the more options so that I can take powers other then the one that's most reliable. And also to create more super awesome combos.
Solo versus team is entirely irrelevant, although since your the second person to mention it I must be saying something wrong. . .
No, its just how you are coming off.
Its an interesting premise but i think giving more powers takes away in my opinion the limiting factor.
You are essentially mirroring the Wizards spellbook feature but instead of choosing one at the beginning of the day you are just saying well here is your slot cast what you want.
The fact that your idea is close to the wizard's model speaks that you are trying to get the "versatility" with no drawbacks.
In the end it really doesnt matter what i think because your just going to implement it anyways.
Well, I've never been called powergamerish before, but fussy and unnecessary do sound a lot like me!
Well, choosing two powers where there should only be one to gain a striking advantage over the written rules because you think they are limiting... That sounds like a powergamer whom doesnt like having his wings trimmed.
Well, choosing two powers where there should only be one to gain a striking advantage over the written rules because you think they are limiting... That sounds like a powergamer whom doesnt like having his wings trimmed.
That sounds like saying the people who invented the rule in chess where pawns could move two spaces on the first turn were powergamers.
To me, its just making a change to make the game more enjoyable.
Its an interesting premise but i think giving more powers takes away in my opinion the limiting factor.
You are essentially mirroring the Wizards spellbook feature but instead of choosing one at the beginning of the day you are just saying well here is your slot cast what you want.
The fact that your idea is close to the wizard's model speaks that you are trying to get the "versatility" with no drawbacks.
In the end it really doesnt matter what i think because your just going to implement it anyways.
Well, of course it doesn't matter what you think about it, it matters what I think. I'll certainly listen to any advice I get! I mean, in Solik's post he was clearly disagreeing with me and yet I still gleaned some insight, so do note that I'm not as hard headed as I say I am!
And it certainly does take away from the limiting factor. Fortunately, at the same exact time, it adds to the diversity factor. I'm pretty sure no one knows what the exact formula of limitation to option creates the ideal tactical game, so its really in the air. You may well be right, though, and that this approach adds too many options and take something away from the game.
If I come back in six months and way something to that effect, you can say I told you so.
Wouldnt it be more elegant to simply say: "You don't replace encoutner powers, you just keep getting new ones" and "You can only use X encounter powers per short rest" where X is the number of encounter powers you would have at your level using the normal replaceing system?
I'd say not. I think LFK might be right when he says that this "problem" is greatest at low levels, so doing it this way doesn't address the "worst" of it. Plus, pairing the powers creates interesting limitation dilemmas.
The tightrope between option and limitation is just so tricky to navigate!
I'd consider extending it to dailies as well.
There would be some power creep but nothing that can't be managed by throwing in an extra monster or two.
All the characters gain out of it is versatility. Nothing wrong with a bit of that.
Two thumbs up from me!
Of course you can make use of them. But I'm talking about a difference between use and best use. More options means its harder to find the best use because not only does the character have more options, the party has more combinations of options to mull over.
I'm not sure I see the difference. Having both healing strike and cause fear does not mean that you will get any better use out of either than you would have with only one, because the party should be able to create an optimal situation for using either with incredible ease, even at level 1.
Two major things here. First, I am right. This is a problem for me. It might not be a problem for anyone else in the universe, but it is for me. Trying to tell me I'm wrong for trying to address a problem that isn't there is fruitless. Whether the problem is based on reality or completely in delusion and emotion is irrelevant to me.
Secondly, I'm not countering any points. I'm clarifying mine. What do I gain by countering points? Prestige?
You offered an idea, we offered criticism, you offered defenses. The defense is countering the point. Saying that you're "clarifying" is just silly semantics. This is a discussion in which we are considering the relative merits of an idea. Each side makes points, and each side makes counterpoints. Nobody wins anything, except a more thorough understanding of the idea discussed. Whether or not you get a prize at the end has nothing to do with whether you were countering points or not.
Also, I don't think this sounds like a powergamer's idea. It sounds like you just want more options. My only criticism is that I do not think your change will actually accomplish what you claim you want, which is a greater tactical challenge to the party. I'm pretty sure it will accomplish the opposite.
More options is a virtue unto itself. If more options is more attractive to you than greater tactical rigor, make the change. If you are honestly trying to make the game more tactically challenging, as you claim, then I think this change will fail.
As usual, I say run with it. If your group has more fun, then it really doesn't matter why you have more fun as long as you do. I'm not trying to discourage the change for the sake of discouraging it. I just don't believe it will accomplish what you say you want.
Well I like Ongorth's idea.
I'd consider extending it to dailies as well.
There would be some power creep but nothing that can't be managed by throwing in an extra monster or two.
All the characters gain out of it is versatility. Nothing wrong with a bit of that.
Two thumbs up from me!
Hmm, extending it to dailies. Well, like I said, I'm not 100% satisfied with dailies, but I'm not sure if the same solution would work being its not the exact same problem. Dallies might be ok to be really specific, since you won't use them every encounter they don't have to fit every encounter. I think I'd rule on the side of limitation here for tactical reasons.
However, extending it to dallies would clearly increase awesomeness.
If you try it(either my idea or the dallies thing or both), make sure to PM me and tell how it worked!
I'm not sure I see the difference. Having both healing strike and cause fear does not mean that you will get any better use out of either than you would have with only one, because the party should be able to create an optimal situation for using either with incredible ease, even at level 1.
But remember, everyone else in the party also has another power too. I find it hard pressed to believe that, even at level one, having your party members armed with 3 more options won't allow allow you to create more "optimal" situations, which in turn makes it harder to find the best situation.
Also, I don't think this sounds like a powergamer's idea. It sounds like you just want more options. My only criticism is that I do not think your change will actually accomplish what you claim you want, which is a greater tactical challenge to the party. I'm pretty sure it will accomplish the opposite.
More options is a virtue unto itself. If more options is more attractive to you than greater tactical rigor, make the change. If you are honestly trying to make the game more tactically challenging, as you claim, then I think this change will fail.
It might not create more tactical challenge, but it'll definitely create more tactical interest which is a good substitute for tactical challenge. Plus, I'm not convinced it won't create more tactical challenge and I'm almost 100% it'll shift some strategic challenge into tactical challenge, which to me will be a great improvement.
Go players can feel free to groan here.
As usual, I say run with it. If your group has more fun, then it really doesn't matter why you have more fun as long as you do. I'm not trying to discourage the change for the sake of discouraging it. I just don't believe it will accomplish what you say you want.
Well, if it does you can say I told you so after herrozerro because I promised him firstsies.
If you try it(either my idea or the dallies thing or both), make sure to PM me and tell how it worked!
Sure, I'll discuss it with the group. Not sure if my lazy players will like the increased bookkeeping thou
But remember, everyone else in the party also has another power too. I find it hard pressed to believe that, even at level one, having your party members armed with 3 more options won't allow allow you to create more "optimal" situations, which in turn makes it harder to find the best situation.
But far, far easier to find a "good enough" situation.
It might not create more tactical challenge, but it'll definitely create more tactical interest which is a good substitute for tactical challenge. Plus, I'm not convinced it won't create more tactical challenge and I'm almost 100% it'll shift some strategic challenge into tactical challenge, which to me will be a great improvement.
Only way to find out now is to test it. I think we've picked the theory apart pretty much with a fine tooth comb.
Well, if it does you can say I told you so after herrozerro because I promised him firstsies.
Meh, I don't care about that.
Hey, I've already been down this road, by the way. If you really want to, you can look up my thread in the houserules section where some posters tear me a new one for trying to allow players to recharge their dailies by burning a healing surge. I thought it would make tactical choices more interesting as well, but I miscalculated the value of a surge vs. the value of a daily. No matter how much we ramped up the challenge, it was always worth it to burn the surge and use the daily as quickly as possible, which made tactics more or less useless because the optimal move was so obvious. Still, I tried it anyway and I'm definitely not sorry I did. It gave me a new appreciation and a deeper understanding of the tactics involved in the game.
It may not help at all, but it might give you enough tactical flexibility to satisfy your needs in the game (and if not, using it might give you insight into a way to expand it usefully).
Our DM has a bad habit of putting encounters in places with lots of doorways. Outdoors having nothing BUT doorways. And he has creatures come through those doorways.
I'd rather end the encounter with some encounter powers left over, than run out of encounter powers just before some major enemies show up.
The expected effect is that it will create a greater tactical flexibility and more opportunities for combos that are appropriate to the situation.
The actual effect is that the other players have two easy-to-use level 1 encounter powers instead of one. And they generally use their first choice power anyway. The reality is that this extra leverage hasn't actually changed much in the way that the players play. Combos are low on their priority list, and what situational powers they have taken are either passed up when the situation does arise or negated by the easy-to-use power being used early. Part of the reason they don't really "get" how to make them great or why you would want to. This is particularely true for off-turn actions: concepts like "action advantage" just aren't part of how a lot of people play the game. Personally, though the option is there, I've passed it up because I like the powers I picked and I can reliably set up the situations that make them good. So for me the opposite is true, but the result is the same: a second choice power is ultimately unnecisary. This is of course barring the rare time where I look a the board and think "wow, that'd be perfect for " but by that point I've likely used my encounter slot already so the whole of it is moot.
Lest it seem all in vane, though, the percieved effect is that their characters are more powerful (because they are) even though the functional siuation hasn't changed. Psychologically they feel better about the relative power of their characters.