I watched yet another Twitter war Thursday afternoon that just made my head spin. For those not hooked on Twitter, @SarahDarkmagic, @AngryDM and @azaroth42 nearly came to blows about the limits of powers and the use of skills. I wanted to get in on it, but my thoughts were entirely too voluminous to try to Tweet, so instead here I am, throwing it down on my home turf.
What is a skill? What is a power? Are they two different things? Are they the same thing? Yes.. and no.
Let’s start with tumbling. No, not the power Tumble, we’ll get to that in a second. Tumbling is the simple concept of rolling around on the battlefield to avoid being attacked. This is an action, not a skill or a power. It’s something the character does to interact with the game world. Like a chemical element, it’s the basic unit of role-playing, independent of whatever way the action is resolved mechanically.
Skills and powers exist on conceptual levels above actions; they’re the manner in which actions are mechanically resolved. Specifically, powers sit on top of actions, and skills sit on top of powers. When performing an action, you first check for a relevant power specific to the action. If the power is not present, you move up another level to the relevant skill. Skills and powers cover the same ground in different ways. Where a skill represents the character’s ability to attempt a wide variety of related actions effectively at any time, a power represents the character’s ability to execute a specific action perfectly at specific intervals. Nowhere better is this described than in skill powers. You’re trained in Arcana? You should be able to use it to gain the edge from time to time in discussion (Arcane Mutterings). The general competence gives berth for a specific expertise.
Now let’s go back to tumbling to give a more concrete example. You have a 2nd level Rogue with the Tumble power. This means that character can always tumble up to his or her speed once per encounter without a chance of failure. The power defines a narrow portion of the character’s expertise that would normally be otherwise covered by the general skill category. If the rogue wants to try tumbling again after the power is expended, can (s)he do that? Of course – the tumbling action is covered by the Acrobatics skill if a relevant Power (such as Tumble) is not available. The difference is that the skill check comes with a chance of failure and that failure should have consequences. At the end of this post, I have several example actions, including tumbling, and how they can be adjudicated using a skill check.
Before that, let’s cover some hang-ups or questions that immediately arise when thinking about this structure. What about attack rolls? You can miss an attack roll, right? Doesn’t that go against what we’ve just said here? Not at all. Look at Spinning Sweep. The Spinning Sweep power is the ability to knock an enemy prone on a hit once per encounter. It involves certain body positioning, movement, outside circumstance and weapon technique to accomplish in the game world. If you have that power, you can execute all those parts correctly once per encounter. Whether you hit, though, is not a factor. The power is the execution of the action, not the resultant effects. If a player in my game said “hey, I’d like to try Spinning Sweep again – can I make an (Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidate) check to do it?” my answer is “hells yeah, go for it.” It’s now a stunt and I’m probably going to have you make a Moderate Lv 1 (level of the power) check to pull it off. The DC might be different if that character isn’t actually a Fighter, but the idea is still valid.
That begs the question, “if a player could keep using encounter (or utility or daily?) powers with an appropriate skill check, why not just keep doing it?” First, combat is dynamic. You’re probably not going to stay in that situation over and over again to make repeating the power worth it. Second, you have a chance of failure and consequences besides just missing on the attack. The stakes are higher. Finally, you have other powers. You picked other awesome things for your character to do. You’re going to want to use them. Never underestimate the power of “ooh shiny” on a character sheet.
Another retort I can already hear through the time/space continuum between when y’all read this and I write it is “but isn’t this against the rules?” I respond with “why do you think that?” Is it because there’s no rule for tumbling in the combat section? Perhaps you feel that the presence of a power precludes all uses of that action otherwise? I would direct you first to page 42 of the original DMG in which a 8th level rogue named Shiera swings on a chandelier and kicks an ogre into a brazier for 2d8+5 damage. Now look at the Monk Lv 3 Encounter “Fallen Hammer in Repose” – shift 1 or move 3 (swing on the chandelier) then deal 2d10 + dex mod damage and push the target 3 (into the brazier). An 8th level Rogue just performed a 3rd level Monk attack with a skill check and it’s in the Dungeon Master’s Guide as an example. Now am I saying you’re playing “wrong” if you don’t pull these sorts of stunts on a regular basis? Of course not. Your playstyle is your playstyle; enjoy the game the way you see fit. I simply wish to point out that not only is the intermingling of effects by powers and skills OK by rule 0 (DM’s discretion), it actually carries precedence in the official game material.
“What about magical or esoteric powers? What if my Wizard wants to make a Religion check to drop a Divine Challenge? What if the Psion wants to cast Sleep? Why bother having classes if you can just steal each other’s powers?” My answer might be surprising: “So?” As we said before, powers individually define narrow areas of expertise. Collectively, they help distinguish classes and roles from one another to provide niche protection. It’s a meta thing. However, if your players aren’t really concerned about spotlight-stealing, why not just run with it, see where it goes? 4E’s math is stable enough that, given the table of regular damage expressions, you could probably run “powerless” and have a workable game. I suspect that once the novelty wore off, the vast majority of players would return to the regular power structure anyway. Drop me a line at ryvencedrylle@gmail.com if you run even so much as a single encounter this way. I’d love to hear about it.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. As stated above, I leave you with some common examples of skill/power crossover to try in your own game. ‘Til next time, peeps.
Tumble
Move Action, Acrobatics, Moderate DC, Level (equal to nearest foe)
Success: As per the Tumble skill, shift your speed.
Failure: Lose move action OR move speed, grant CA on opportunity attacks OR shift speed but fall prone
Move Light Object with Magic
Minor Action, Arcana (trained only), DC 20
Success: As per the Mage Hand power.
Failure: Object rolls into enemy’s square OR object breaks/takes damage OR grab similar nearby object instead
Set Small Trap
Standard Action, Dungeoneering or Nature (trained only), Hard DC, Level (equal to foe intended for trap)
Success: As per the Invoker’s Grasping Shards power, no radiant, trigger when target enters square.
Failure: Trapsetter triggers effect OR trap goes off the second time triggered instead of first OR trap slows but does not deal damage
Healing by Encouragement at a Distance
Standard Action, Insight or Diplomacy, Hard DC + 2, Level (equal to intended ally)
Success: As per the Warlord’s Inspiring Word, according to level.
Failure: Loss of action OR heal, but you grant CA (are distracted) OR heal only allows surge (those extra d6s get more important as you get higher in level)
Similar Posts:
- Skill Challenge #9: Prison Break — Caged
- Thrill of the chase: expanded rules for vehicular combat
- 4e and the Art of the Limit Break, Part 3: Martial Limit Breaks
Ryven Cedrylle was introduced to 2nd edition D&D by his father at age 8 and has been hooked ever since. When not out somewhere with his nerd-loving wife, he spends an inordinate amount of time staring at small objects - primarily beakers, stars, books about religion and virtual gaming miniatures. Follow him on 
The FATE RPG has a structure called Stunts which are vaguely analagous to what feats were in D&D3 but tied more intrinsically to skills. Some of the light style re-writes of FATE have taken up a build your own system of Stunts where in there are basically 4 types of Stunts that a PC can have. I’d love to see a 4e light system where there is just a short build your own guideline to powers instead of the giant wall of powers inherent to the game now.
Personally I am more willing to do things like stunts or low damage actions. I wouldnt let my players continually reuse powers exactly as they are presented.
For instance, someone wanted to use spinning sweep again? I’s let them do it with maybe one weapon damage or a reduction in die size. But I wouldnt let them have the full power again.
I’m curious, specifically, about the spinning sweep example; would you be adjudicating that as:
-A normal attack roll (for a melee basic attack, say) accompanied by an appropriate skill roll for the prone component?
-A purely Athletics-based roll that only causes the target to fall prone?
or
-An actual, damaging Athletics roll that counts as both attack and status effect, possibly gaining weapon bonuses.
It’s interesting that the first possibility sounds eerily similar to the way Essentials treats the martial classes, albeit with a second potential layer of failure. Part of what I’m curious about, though, is if you’re espousing one of (especially the second) the latter two possibilities. If so, it seems like you’d be moving towards a system that can do away with attack rolls entirely, in favor of skill checks. The checks would each carry a chance of failure which is greater than the standard “You missed” consequence of a whiffed attack, but this entire system seems predicated on having the kinds of players who embrace narrative and theatricality over raw math. For such a group, I imagine a spectacular failure would as entertaining as a resounding success.
Is this something you could perhaps expand on in another entry? I don’t look at what you’ve proposed and say “But that’s against the rules!” but I am curious as to how you’d adjudicate and balance combat, and just how much of what we have now you’re suggesting players move away from.
Excellent insights. Advice like this should definitely accompany the Serious Skills posts. Excellent Ryven. Thanks for revealing the expansive bounds inherent in 4e.
I was discussing with one of my players about a ‘powerless’ 4e game using damage expressions two nights ago. That’s a very juicy idea, especially since I love hybrids and character concepts that transcend legal class/race combos. I think you elaborate clearly though that it would only go so far, and the “ooh shiny” effect does have significant pull so players wouldn’t always be manufacturing new powers.
That ability to manufacture powers at-will, however, is what has been drawing me away from 4e to Cortex Plus lately. Perhaps be revisiting the potential for freeform action-based (rather than skill or power-based) play will reinvigorate my belief/interest in 4e.
This is an awesome post. I don’t play 4e – 3.5 and pathfinder for me, but I think that these concepts could easily carry over with excellent results.
Nice!
I love the idea that powers are focused stunts which give you a auto-success on a skill roll on a limited basis. That simple thought brings more of 4e into focus for me. Meta-thinking like this gives me a system to understand instead of a collection of powers to memorize. I find it much easier to internalize a system at run-time so I can improvise logically.
This gives me some solid guidelines for players who want to try things, especially with the idea of “my character is working on learning this power”. And when the power they’re trying to learn doesn’t exist, there’s my hook to create and extend the system within the confines of the game world, and that’s what I’ve been missing with 4e up to this point.
I’m stoked to tackle a 4e game now. Thanks!
You could work quite a few mechanics from other games into 4e by making them into Powers, and giving them to the players. Aspects from Fate could easily be a power (No Action, At-Will, Power name is Aspect, Two Triggers (Invoke/Compel), Two Effects (Use Fate Point/Gain Fate Point), as could almost anything you can think of. It might be interesting to have players who think they are ‘limited’ by their powers to create new Powers describing what they want to do, and putting some mechanical constraints on them in a way that lets them be proactive.
Brilliant and well expressed. Why not do away with powers make a matrix of effects (hitting more than 1 target with an attack, conjuring arcane fire, etc.)? Assign each effect a skill and a DC increment. Say the base for any stunt is either 10 or the target’s defense + the DC of each added effect.
Great article! I agree with your points; your take is basically how I run my games. I fall in the camp of “story before system”, meaning player ideas and the scene’s narrative will always take precedence over the structure of the rules. Thankfully, in 4e, the rules can accommodate nearly any foray into this territory. The DMG damage expressions and new easy/moderate/hard DC chart make it incredibly easy.
This deserves a special button. Seriously, really good way to handle this. I love the idea of reusing powers, and maybe even increasing DCs for the third and fourth, etc. times you pull out the same power. Cross-class power-stealing? That’s really cool, too! Makes the classes far more flexible.
This is very exciting. It reminds me of the freedom opened up by Rob Donoghue’s posts about using Skills to inflict HP damage by ‘attacking the situation,’ except I’d say this is built more into 4e already: http://bit.ly/eVvGs9
This hits home for me because I play a 10th Level Rogue in a campaign when I’m not DMing. I am ALWAYS looking for ways to use my skills in and out of combat. I sense that I’m somewhat of a pain in the ass for the DM because I’m always asking for specific information about the environment to see how I can use that to my advantage, or to try something slightly reckless but cool.
“Can I run, jump over that table, and then charge that guy there?”
As a DM, I enjoy when the players use skills in creative ways, but there is a habit of only using skills when it’s a “Skill Challenge.” I’ve moved away from the Skill Challenge mechanics and let it play out more organically. I don’t really bother with a set number of successes and fails.
It does create more on-the-fly thinking for the DM, but anything that engages the player to “be” the PC is a good thing in my eyes. Nice article!
This is such a different way of looking at things… It’s hard to fully wrap my mind around… So awesome.
This is a brilliant take on the existing rules, and an example of the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that makes RPGs fun. Recently I’ve dealt with any number of players who have shied away from choices because they’re “not in the rules”. As a DM, i’ve encouraged them to “ask for what they need”, explaining that it’s my job to adjudicate their choices.
I’m playtesting a take on 4e powers where I’ve turned them into a tactical menu that players draw from on-the-fly, spending points (like stamina, or fatigue points) to implement their choice of additional options. My players are getting used to the idea, and having fun with it. The model you’ve proposed here is so accessible! Finding ways to inspire players towards this kind of thinking, and to reward them when they do it, is the key.
…You pretty much just melted my face. Marry me. XD
Great post! I like the idea that powers are just stunts w/o the risk of extra something bad happening if you fail.
Makes me wonder… I really don’t like feats. The +1 or +2 to here or there isn’t quite as flavorful and I find with newer players giving them the CB or even a limited set of feats is just overwhelming. They grok their limited power choices, but feats… yeach.
I’ve long wondered how I could drop them from the game and perhaps still have some flavor to work with balance wise. I am now considering using Skill Powers as a means to cover some gaps – let them pick a skill power half as often instead of any feats. Who knows.
I also wonder if you couldn’t rewrite the system to INCLUDE FAILURE options for encounter powers. Maybe a “Additional Use: On a failure, you are slowed until the end of your next turn.” basically says that if you miss on an additional use, you might be slowed because your Tumble became a Stumble and you need additional time regaining your footing next round.
A lot of additional work, but makes me wonder if it would be worth it to include that as I rework existing classes/powers for wildly different settings I have planned out.