Quote from: StormBringer;379733Now this I find fascinating.  Why aren't all the 'stunts' like throwing sand or tripping in a general, non-class specific powers list?

Taking your question literally...because that would require all stunts to be codified as rules, which I don't think is a realistic or desirable goal. Really you're just suggesting adding more and more powers, which still leaves the matter of adjudicating actions that are not specifically covered by the rules. It decreases the numbers of actions not covered by the rules, but the issue still remains.

Quote from: Benoist;379772See... I'll never be able to accept that kind of premise. It's really like talking different languages. The logic of 4e is so completely far out there to me, it's unbelievable.

Talk about an overstatement. The names of powers don't have a 1:1 correspondence to the normal use of language, which is one reason you capitalize them: they're proper names. Spell names in D&D have always been this way: you can't tell what many of them do just from their names. There are more of them now, but it's the same deal.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379797To Doom: have you tried using minions to "Aid Other" in combat?

That's one use for them, but it's a boring use.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379880Talk about an overstatement. The names of powers don't have a 1:1 correspondence to the normal use of language, which is one reason you capitalize them: they're proper names. Spell names in D&D have always been this way: you can't tell what many of them do just from their names. There are more of them now, but it's the same deal.

I'd say his (Benoist's) call is just.
Its not just the power name; the fluff text is usually out as well (most of the powers have fluff that vastly overrates what they do, somewhat like "you rip off his arms and legs and laugh as he bleeds to death", but then do 1W damage).
Just offhand, we have plenty of other game terms that don't work e.g. 'healing surges' don't actually heal you, since hit points aren't physical damage. These are however modified by Constitution, the attribute which secondarily determines your crossbow and warhammer damage. Charisma essentially determines your ability to hit people with swords if you're a paladin (compare the dictionary definition), saving throws don't 'save' you so much as affect duration, the Weakened condition doesn't affect your actual Strength, Two Weapon Fighting gives characters +1 to damage with one weapon. And action points probably slow down the game

Stormbringer --

The best I can do is explain it like a proficiency.

A given class' powers denote what abilities/maneuvers they're proficient in.  Other classes may attempt similar actions (within reason -- a wizard isn't going to suddenly know how to knock two arrows and fire them simultaneously in the middle of a fight), but will not have the benefit of being trained/familiar with such actions.  The bonuses you get from class powers to your roll is so significant that another class attempting the same action without the bonus isn't going to be a threat to any sort of niche covered.

We're talking having a difference of +4/5 or more to your roll at first level and not having to split up actions because they're trained maneuvers.

Like my previous example, powers for martial classes are like the bits and pieces of martial arts rules in other games.  Yeah, someone else can try to do a spinning kick, or throw another person, but that doesn't mean they can do it as efficiently or as well.

Quote from: Peregrin;379896Stormbringer --

The best I can do is explain it like a proficiency.

A given class' powers denote what abilities/maneuvers they're proficient in.  Other classes may attempt similar actions (within reason -- a wizard isn't going to suddenly know how to knock two arrows and fire them simultaneously in the middle of a fight), but will not have the benefit of being trained/familiar with such actions.  The bonuses you get from class powers to your roll is so significant that another class attempting the same action without the bonus isn't going to be a threat to any sort of niche covered.

We're talking having a difference of +4/5 or more to your roll at first level and not having to split up actions because they're trained maneuvers.

Like my previous example, powers for martial classes are like the bits and pieces of martial arts rules in other games.  Yeah, someone else can try to do a spinning kick, or throw another person, but that doesn't mean they can do it as efficiently or as well.

Or, in fact, at all.  According to most people here, there seems to be a very high resistance to allowing anyone to throw sand in an opponent's eyes and do damage.  I get that, I don't really have a problem with it.  But you are comparing a Magic-User picking up a sword with a substantial penalty and virtually guaranteeing their defeat in combat with no one else except a Rogue being able to do damage and blind someone in a single round.

4e powers are, by design, exclusionary.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379880Taking your question literally...because that would require all stunts to be codified as rules, which I don't think is a realistic or desirable goal. Really you're just suggesting adding more and more powers, which still leaves the matter of adjudicating actions that are not specifically covered by the rules. It decreases the numbers of actions not covered by the rules, but the issue still remains.

No, in fact, it would not require all stunts to be codified as rules.  Just the most common ones.

surely it woudl be better to return to a 2e world where there were numerous combat options but no powers/feats. Then you coudl have a neat little rule for stunts that covered everything from throwing sand to using a torch to set light to the drapes to tripping an opponet. Maybe the system could take account for your class and level ... maybe using some sort to to hit bonus you might already have.
Yes it would mean that non spell casters didn;t have a load of powers to make them seem more like spellcasters  but it woudl mean you get away from the total crap that is throwing sand where there is no sand, using your winning smile to increase your chance to hit and tripping a grey ooze.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;379912surely it woudl be better to return to a 2e world where there were numerous combat options but no powers/feats. Then you coudl have a neat little rule for stunts that covered everything from throwing sand to using a torch to set light to the drapes to tripping an opponet. Maybe the system could take account for your class and level ... maybe using some sort to to hit bonus you might already have.
Yes it would mean that non spell casters didn;t have a load of powers to make them seem more like spellcasters  but it woudl mean you get away from the total crap that is throwing sand where there is no sand, using your winning smile to increase your chance to hit and tripping a grey ooze.....

So you're talking about FtA!; basically.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;380292So you're talking about FtA!; basically.

RPGPundit

That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon

Quote from: jibbajibba;380368That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon

A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

Quote from: jibbajibba;380368That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon

Alright, I'm curious.  You going to write this/these paragraphs here?  Maybe a new thread?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;380509A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

Why would a stunt system that was always used be boring?

Provided you can use it to swing from a chandalier, trip an opponent, throw real sand in someone's eyes (not 4e meta-sand), or push them back x squares then it shoudl work and always appear different so ...

Personally I would rule it so that stunts do not do damage per se but rather do damage as dependent on environment/effect, so pushing someone over a cliff does damage... as does setting fire to them. Thereofre it will normally not be used over and above an attack for the majority of the time and you need a robust set of combat options that includes fighting defensively, disarms, and all teh standards (all open to everyone of course)

In answer to WB ... yeah i will have a go tonight and post it here. It will be for 2e D&D (so will use THACO as its driver) but If I have a chance I will write it out again in 4e speak (although it strikes me they have a perfectly good stunt system they just gimped it so that they could run a powers system in parallel to it)

Quote from: FrankTrollman;380509A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

The particular limits will depend on users. Some games will break down at some tables because of too much/not enough information and minutiae, while others will thrive. It comes down, as a designer, to knowing what audience your game is aimed that, first and foremost.

Seems to me like you're conflating your own tastes with objective design principles.

Quote from: jibbajibba;380560Why would a stunt system that was always used be boring?

If you do it all the time, it's no longer a stunt.

My friends and family are quite bored with my juggling, but I can still use it to impress people that don't know me...inasmuch as juggling is impressive, anyway.

Quote from: Doom;380612If you do it all the time, it's no longer a stunt.

My friends and family are quite bored with my juggling, but I can still use it to impress people that don't know me...inasmuch as juggling is impressive, anyway.

I guess you are aafriad that if a stunt proves very sucessful they will repeat it ad nauseam?
Might be a risk but realistically its spot on. Plenty of fighters have a favoured move and if they are fighting a new opponent it's their go to move. Benny the Jet's spinning round kick is a case in point. Now if you fight the same guy all the time they will know that trick/stunt and can avoid or counter it but in D&D how often do you fight the same opponent?

Plenty of guys have one chat up line they always use...

just realisted its 12:20am and I haven't started that paragraph better get to it :0

Quote from: winkingbishop;380520Alright, I'm curious.  You going to write this/these paragraphs here?  Maybe a new thread?

I second the motion that Jibba-Jibba start a new thread.
This would double the flamewar opportunities