Should non-magical encounter powers exist?

[Psychic Robot]

On the one hand, it's retarded when the fighter can only Power Attack once per encounter. On the other hand, encounter powers allow you to do special things on a timer which allows players to use interesting effects that would otherwise break the game if they were at-will.

So, what are your thoughts?

[hogarth]

I don't have a problem with it, in theory. Spamming the same bad-ass move every single round is boring.

[Zinegata]

Non-magic encounter powers exist in plenty of games. The problem is that people who play in D&D aren't used to them because while there is a magic system, there isn't something similar for fighters (i.e. Rage, Fatigue, etc).

So there's no reason for it not to exist.

[TOZ]

Hell yeah. Give me secret techniques that can only be used on an enemy once, and then you have to figure out how to catch him off guard with it for it to be effective again.

[mean_liar]

I'm a big fan of tags and conditionals: Power Attack, a Brutal maneuver, is most effective when used on an opponent attempting a Crafty maneuver.

So you can spam Power Attack, but in doing so you're spamming a Brutal maneuver which opens you up to Precise maneuvers.

WoF sidesteps that by abstracting that ebb-and-flow. I'm more of a fan of giving a precise reason why you wouldn't spam something than just making a hard per-Encounter limit.

Per-Encounter can be conceived/rationalized as an abstraction similar to WoF, but to me it feels like an unideal design: it's jarring and breaks verisimilitude.

[hogarth]

Per-Encounter can be conceived/rationalized as an abstraction similar to WoF, but to me it feels like an unideal design: it's jarring and breaks verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude depends on the genre. For instance, the Hulk sometimes slams his hands on the ground in order to make a mini-earthquake. If I were playing a superhero game and the Hulk did that more than once per fight scene, that would come off as jarring to me, personally (since I've never seen that happen in the comics).

[Crissa]

Well, you could add a simple set of that to a WoF setting, with the WoF abilities tagged as Precise or Brutal or Crafty. So maybe you don't have position (WoF) for your big Brutal move, but you do have room for your quick Brutal move.

It's really hard to design a system that doesn't result in 'Brutal, Brutal, Brutal' if it's your effective move and giving the opponent a chance to catch you doing it. If your Brutal move kills them, how are they supposed to take advantage of it?

-Crissa

[virgil]

The more ham-handed methods of enforcing encounter powers can be frustrating to see. Even in superhero comics like the Hulk, they've occasionally used their special move more than once if it proved to be especially effective. What prevented them from using it more than once/scene was more tactics than actual capability, but stories enjoy the benefit of the author being able to direct the fight to ensure that the ideal choice is to not spam their special move.

[K]

I think non-magical encounter powers make more sense that magical ones. I mean, if you use a feint or backflip or something an enemy is going to be prepared for it next time, but I see you reason why I get one Fireball and not two per set of enemies.

[Ice9]

I'm ok with "it doesn't work when they're prepared for it" as a reason - if it actually works that way. Which is not the same as simply working once per encounter. "Prepared for it" implies that:
* If a second group of enemies enter the fight after the move was used, and don't communicate with the first group, then you can use it against them.
* Ditto if some of the enemies were unable to see it when the move was used.
* And if you fight the same enemies multiple times, or you fight enemies that were watching you fight previously, then you wouldn't be able to use it at all.
* Or if the foes were able to read your surface thoughts, it also wouldn't work.
* Against mindless shit, you should just be able to spam it.

But just claiming that as a justification and then making the actual mechanics "1 / encounter" is pretty much just as arbitrary as saying "because the God of Battle doesn't like you spamming things".

Fatigue is another possible explanation. Pretty consistent in most cases. But it doesn't really explain "You can use Whirlwind Strike and Mountain Hammer once each, but not Mountain Hammer twice". Which maybe doesn't need to be the case - I actually prefer flexible resource limits to rigid ones.

[Just another user]

I think non-magical encounter powers make more sense that magical ones. I mean, if you use a feint or backflip or something an enemy is going to be prepared for it next time, but I see you reason why I get one Fireball and not two per set of enemies.

But with encounter powers there is never a "next time". You can't attempt it again and fail, you just can't use it again. But if you meet the same enemy 10 minutes later someway he fall for it again, talk about ADD.
I think the most "realistic" way is to apply a penalty to successive attempts, the first feint is a -0, the second at -4 and so on, if you are good enough or if you set the right conditions (pile penalties on your enemy someway) you can attempt it more than once, but it get harder and harder.

[RobbyPants]

Fatigue is another possible explanation. Pretty consistent in most cases. But it doesn't really explain "You can use Whirlwind Strike and Mountain Hammer once each, but not Mountain Hammer twice". Which maybe doesn't need to be the case - I actually prefer flexible resource limits to rigid ones.

I was going to suggest fatigue, but you're right about it limiting specific powers.

Mean_Liar is onto something about coming up with reasons not to spam a power.

It could be annoying to implement and run, but a sort of RSP attack/defense system could work well, but that might just turn into people alternating their attacks and defenses in a three-turn rotation (or however many turns as you have attack/defense groups).

[Fuchs]

Possible solution:

A modifier that increases each time a power is used in the same encounter, making it harder to connect each time - or easier to evade/resist it. Maybe limited to the same target, or to thinking/learning foes. That would work for the PCs too, of course, if they are facing a one-trick pony.

[RobbyPants]

So long as the bookkeeping doesn't get out of hand, that's a decent in-game justification. I just don't want to have to keep a tally of powers per opponent. I mean, if I have five available powers and five opponents, that's 25 tallies I need to keep to figure out who's wise to what. That's a pain.

A more simple approach might work fine, like just a single tally per maneuver. You'd handwave it away as guys you aren't fighting still see you use the power, so they still know you can do it.

[Fuchs]

Yeah. "Second time you use a power in this fight? Add X to the defense."