Abilities "In" and "Out" of Combat

[MGuy]

This came up in a conversation I was having with a newer friend of mine over ability selection in a GURPs game. I was telling him how having Magic abilities as opposed to some of the better martial abilities seemed far more useful. Now I'm not a real GURPS player having only played a few times in all but I was making a comparison to the usefulness of "magic" as compared to the limited number of applications of many of the martial abilities.

The issue I brought up was over something simple. I compared being able to summon fire in my hand to being able to counter an attack. Now in a fight the flame may not do as much for me as countering a strike. However, even if the counter was better in a fight, I couldn't use the counter outside of battle to do anything while I could summon fire to do any number of things when not fighting. It could light my way, help me ignite something, warm me in cold conditions, scare weaker opposition away, amaze crowds of onlookers, etc. This was why I hated the fact that in 4E if I had a flaming sword strike I couldn't use it to DO anything outside of a fight, but that's a different rant.

Now I had already tried to combat this in my game by making magic accessible to everyone and even making various martial abilities have effect "types" that included some effects that could be used out of battle. For example my Barbarian has an attack that can be used to bring enemies outside of his/her reach closer. This is an "air" effect and being that it is considered to be a wind generating ability, that in this case drags things to you. So you could use it to drag something toward you, to counter other "air" affects along with "fire"affects. However, on the same list of abilities, there are more generic abilities that amount to basically "attack more accurately", "guarantee a crit" and "do more damage". Now these are valuable abilities considering some of the mechanics in my game and the difficulty I'm trying to inject when it comes to gaining bonuses however these do not have any out of battle effects and I'm having a hard time deciding what to do about it.

[Krakatoa]

Depending on what a combat ability does, it seems easy enough to translate that into a non-combat function. Think of how it works not based on the mechancis but within the frame of the world. For example, an ability that boosts accuracy in combat could also boost accuracy in instances where it might be required out of combat, like a game or competition, or helping in the use of a weapon to solve an environmental puzzle.

Or for a concrete example, the Fighter At-Will 'Sure Strike' allows fighters to trade power for precision. It implies a sort of mental focus at the cost of not putting the full oomph into the strike. If I were DMing, I'd allow a player to use Sure Strike to increase accuracy in ways that don't neccesarily involve hitting things with swords, at the cost of less force in the final result.

[MGuy]

How would you translate a technique that specifically counters an attack into something that could be used casually for non-combative purposes?

[the_taken]

Wouldn't that depend entirely on how the counter attack works? I don't see how parrying blade strikes would have an out of combat us, even a collapsing ceiling mounted kitchen knife dispenser is actually attacking you. However, a flash of light that blinds an attacker could be used for signaling, while using hydrokenisis to grab you attacker's weapon with water could instead be used to perform irrigation more efficiently. It all depends on the ingenuity of the user.

[Username17]

This is one of the key components of "Fighters can't have nice things." The vast majority of what your character can do in the game isn't actually based on what numbers they have or what the game effects of your abilities are listed as. The vast majority of what your character can and will do is entirely based on what your character can "obviously" do. Most of your character's real abilities are therefore things like "has thumbs" and "is capable of speaking". Things which, while incredibly valuable for the progression of the campaign, are so "obvious" that you don't pay anything for them or even write them down.

When you give a character a new ability, you also potentially give them additional ways to interact with the world. But that potential is only realized if the ability "obviously" entails doing something not contained within the subset of methods of world interaction they already had just for being a humanoid.

So yeah, an ability that involves swinging a weapon at a target is an inherently shitty ability. Because it comes with the ability to grip, lift, and manipulate objects, recognize opponents in combat situations, move through space, and hurt living targets without scarring yourself psychologically. Which are all fine and dandy abilities, but the fighter already had all of them. The ability to shoot flame bolts is a great ability, because even though it only really comes with the ability to recognize three dimensional space, identify targets as bing distinct from their surroundings, generate brief flashes of light or heat, and start fires with your mind - a couple of those things did not come free with your Cheerios when you signed up to play a hominid.

-Username17

[Orion]

The trick is to attach every combat maneuver to a noncombat feat.

So you have fleet of foot which is an overland travel and trap-avoidance ability, but it comes free with Whirlwind Attack.

Statesmanlets you detect lies, and be immune to flanking if you have an adjacent ally. And negate feint attacks.

Tireless makes you immune to sleep and fatigue, and gives you some grappling maneuvers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The trick is to attach every combat maneuver to a noncombat feat.

That's fine for low-level stuff, but what about high-level stuff? What would be some comparable high-level combat/noncombat stuff?

[Lago PARANOIA]

See, that's one of the major problems with fighter balancing, even among the people who want them to have actual superpowers. They come up with combat feats and then try to reverse engineer the maneuver to see if there's anything that they can use for non-combat.

That's doing it the wrong way around. Think about level-appropriate feats to do that doesn't in of itself lead to combat, THEN think of a combat application for it. For example, if you gave the fighter the ability of Power Strike--which lets them add +50 to damage, enough to cleave a wall of force in two--a lot of people are still going to argue that a fighter can't lift up a 2-ton boulder and do a marathon with it. But if you give them the ability of Titan Arms THEN people will accept both the boulder thing and letting them have Power Strike.

It'd be better for the fighter and for the game to give the fighter some broad-application ability like Super Strength and then determine the kinds of feats a fighter can accomplish from that. This is what One Piece and JJBA does and it works out great. Hell, this is what D&D does for their specialist wizards and no one complains about a necromancer or a summoner being stale.

[Ice9]

I could see a few options:

1) Fuck it, Everything is Elemental
Every ability gets an elemental tag, whether it "needs" one or not. So you increase your accuracy with Air, block incoming attacks with the stability of Earth, or stab faces harder with the power of Fire. Then out of combat, you've got the elemental stuff to play with.

2) Mental Focus Shatters Mountains
The extreme mental focus you need to use these techniques gives you other benefits as well, to the point of practically being psychic powers. So for example, your "Weak-Point Seeking Strike" also lets you see the weak points in a politician's argument, or a magic binding circle, or the defense plan for a city under siege.

3) I Was Trained in Tiger Style!
All the really good combat techniques come from training in a secret style. And that training includes non-combat applications as well. So for instance, White Scorpion Style may let you sneak attack more effectively. But it would also teach you how to walk unseen, disguise yourself perfectly (even against mind reading), brew poisons and antidotes, and so forth.

[the_taken]

That's a great idea, Lago. I'm going to implement that right away with the CandyLand designing. Good thing I've been sporadic with my attention to the project, or they're would be much redesigning.

[MGuy]

@Ice: The first one is the one I have been thinking about the most. However my game is split up between more than just elemental forces for magic and so there are a number of alternate ability "Types" I might be able to assign certain abilities to.

[Krakatoa]

How would you translate a technique that specifically counters an attack into something that could be used casually for non-combative purposes?

It may be that some things don't acutally come with a non-combat use.

In thise case, like the_taken said, it depends on how that counter ability works. Is the character who has it just particularly good using the enemy's momentum against them? Are they good at finding ways to use leverage? Is it a sudden burst of reactive super-speed? Does it require a shield or can it be done with a weapon alone?

If the rules don't specify, then you could presumably just make something up and run it by the GM.

[MGuy]

How would you translate a technique that specifically counters an attack into something that could be used casually for non-combative purposes?

It may be that some things don't acutally come with a non-combat use.

In thise case, like the_taken said, it depends on how that counter ability works. Is the character who has it just particularly good using the enemy's momentum against them? Are they good at finding ways to use leverage? Is it a sudden burst of reactive super-speed? Does it require a shield or can it be done with a weapon alone?

If the rules don't specify, then you could presumably just make something up and run it by the GM.

I'm asking from a game designer's standpoint as I am designing a game. This is one of the brick walls I have yet to overcome. Right now I've been leaning on something like Ice9's first suggestion. I will work on this counter thing along with other abilities in a similar fashion until I can find an easier answer.

[Kaelik]

Mguy, the thing you need to know about Krakatoa is that he doesn't actually exist.

He's just here to be a 4e apologist/promoter. He doesn't have any contributions to making games, making better, or really anything other than telling you to go play 4e. He's only in this thread because you complained about fire sword, and his only comments are about how you can rule zero fire sword till you like it, so go play 4e.

[Krakatoa]

I'm asking from a game designer's standpoint as I am designing a game. This is one of the brick walls I have yet to overcome. Right now I've been leaning on something like Ice9's first suggestion. I will work on this counter thing along with other abilities in a similar fashion until I can find an easier answer.

I get that, but there may not be an easier answer. Some things don't neccesarily translate from combat mechanics to non-combat mechanics. Ice9's first suggestion is part of a good solution, but there may not be a complete one. It really depends on the tone and style of the game you're designing.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Arbitrarily tie nonmagic noncombat powers to nonmagic combat-only powers. It should scale up to the point that nonmagic abilities become completely obsolete.

[Dean]

See, that's one of the major problems with fighter balancing, even among the people who want them to have actual superpowers. They come up with combat feats and then try to reverse engineer the maneuver to see if there's anything that they can use for non-combat.

It'd be better for the fighter and for the game to give the fighter some broad-application ability like Super Strength and then determine the kinds of feats a fighter can accomplish from that.

That ^ +1

Although you'd need the right system for that to even work. Because, lets use 3.5 for example, even if the Fighter got access to some list of "powers" that were just literally cherry picked powers from the PHB spell lists that made him super strong and be able to tenser transform at will and whatnot he would still suck ass. Because in those systems even the super powers they give you, if they are combat relatable, just redirect you back to normal math additions and feat gimme's. So the fighter still wouldn't be any better if he was "Super Strong" in those systems because that would just loop him back around to getting bonuses in the shit he's already great at.
Something like GURPS however, could handle that fine. So perhaps I'm beleaguering an unnecessary point.

[mean_liar]

I'd argue for an effects-based system where combat effects and out-of-combat effects are entirely separated.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'd argue for an effects-based system where combat effects and out-of-combat effects are entirely separated.

The problem with that is trying to wrap flavor around it. IMO it dumps way too much work in the lap of the player and the DM.

[Username17]

I'd argue for an effects-based system where combat effects and out-of-combat effects are entirely separated.

I wouldn't. Because the vast majority of your noncombat effects are not effects. They are stuff like manipulating objects in three dimensional space and recognizing voice patterns of people you've encountered previously. Stuff that doesn't get written down or even uniquely described.

Having super strength lets you lift heavy things, but only because you can already recognize objects in three dimensional space, grip things, and manipulate them with the force your physical strength is capable of producing. And all of those effects, while amazing in their own way, are not written down on your character sheet and won't be discussed in any detail by the effects system.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

I'd argue for an effects-based system where combat effects and out-of-combat effects are entirely separated.

The problem with that is trying to wrap flavor around it. IMO it dumps way too much work in the lap of the player and the DM.

That's a legit complaint. My answer to that was to come up with PrC-style adjunct effects that arise out of having a critical mass of specific flavored abilities.

I enjoy having the open-ended nature of effects-based systems. It makes me happy. It might lean on being imaginative, but I wouldn't call that a hindrance.


...


I don't even know what Frank is talking about. I assume its another strawman argument based on pedantry.

EDIT - Yes, that's what it is. As well as a bizarre assumption that super-strength is not an out-of-combat ability.

[Username17]

I don't even know what Frank is talking about. I assume its another strawman argument based on pedantry.

EDIT - Yes, that's what it is. As well as a bizarre assumption that super-strength is not an out-of-combat ability.

Uh... no. Of course "Super Strength" is an out-of-combat ability. But it works with other abilities, lots of other abilities that you don't even bother writing on your character sheet.

Super Strength by itself is just the ability to exert a large force. Without the ability to perceive objects, target them, grasp them, and manipulate them with the force you can exert it's not particularly useful. Which may sound like flippant pedantry, but it's actually important. It's important because the things you can do in the game because you have super strength you can do because of those synergies and not because of the effect itself.

That's the core problem that every "effect" based system has to contend with. You solve problems with the synergies between your effects, not with solitary effects. The ability to telekinetically manipulate things you can see is a lot better if you can see in the dark or see through walls. And it's fucking useless if you can't see at all.

Effect based systems are almost universally flippant about these synergies, telling the players to figure it out and deal with the consequences. But at that point, there is no point in the effect based system to begin with.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

That's still bizarrely pedantic.

Just relative to your example, a TK-by-touch (ie, Superstrength) is presumed stronger (for the same character development investment - levels, abilities, feats, points, whatever) than a TK-at-range (ie, standard telekinesis). So your character chooses if they want to lift mountains by touch or hurl boulders at range. Or hurl boulders by touch and do something else with the difference in character development investment.

Your real argument, such that I can parse it, is that mundane-source effects (such as relying on touch) provide no greater method to interact with the world. Why are you discounting the actual effect itself in that calculation? Lifting heavier shit, or having more options than your equivalent-TK-strength magical at-range buddy (since you have spent less on your abilities as yours are mundanely limited) IS a method of interaction with the world.

[Orca]

I'd argue for an effects-based system where combat effects and out-of-combat effects are entirely separated.

I wouldn't. It prevents even the slightest innovative use of either category; using your out of combat TK to float a grenade over to someone, or using your in combat superstrength to flip over a car, for example

[mean_liar]

To some extent I think you're misunderstanding me. It's not that you couldn't use non-combat effects in combat, but rather your acquisition of them are separated. Blasting people to pieces is separate from the ability to control the ambient heat in an area, for example. I'm arguing for two things:

1. Combat and non-combat abilities are selected from separate pools, and XP is split between the categories such that you can't forego non-combat abilities for combat abilities.

2. Accounting for increased utility of non-standard manifestations (action at a distance being the first that comes to mind) is possible such that standard manifestations remain advantageous (such as assessing non-standard manifestations an efficacy penalty).


Using TK to float a grenade is easy enough. Tossing heavy shit at people is problematic, but not unsolvable.

One solution is to tie out-of-combat effects to slow firing times: out-of-combat superstrength takes all your effort and say, thirty seconds of straining. Or more. If you want to rip a tree from the ground and use it in combat, that sounds like some kind of improvised weapon combat trick with a descriptor that's "super-strength".