You have put your finger on one of the major design changes for 4E, though it's not quite as you've described.
Powers are divided into two categories: attacks and utilities. What you're looking at are all attack powers. Very nearly all of the do damage, though some of them don't and for some character classes the damage is just a small bonus compared to what the attack power's main focus is (moving enemies or allies to gain tactical advantages, protecting allies, giving bonuses, etc.) The utility powers are where you will find the sorts of "support" abilities that potentially have immediate combat applications. This doesn't mean that they can only be used in combat, but if they're not something that you can pull out in a dangerous fast-paced situation and do, it won't be rendered as a power.
The support spells in general have been scaled down to avoid the tendency in previous editions of battles being won or lost based on what your cleric and wizard do before the fight starts and then "going nova" at the start of combat, blowing through their big attacks. Now a spell of protection is more likely to be an immediate interrupt that you cast when your ally is threatened, negating or countering that one attack and maybe protecting them for the following turn, instead of something you cast at the start of combat to protect them until it's dispelled. The focus is more on teamwork and how different characters can work together, which makes combat more interesting than the old fashioned "stat battle" where you just keep directly attacking every turn until the enemy is dead.
Things like portal spells, knock, overland travel, and divination spells are still there. They're just handled separately from powers, as "rituals".
As for the question of whether or not 4E would suit your style of play: what kind of game mechanics do you need for roleplaying? What rules do you need to be a very theatrical player and to play in or run a session without battle? 4E's design philosophy is to use rules to make combat exciting and cinematic (which I think it succeeds in) but have the rules get out of the way of roleplaying.
To give you an example, if you're playing as a Shaman, you have a spirit companion. The rules defining what your spirit companion can do in combat are very well defined. Outside of combat? Almost no rules. It's suggested that your spirit companion is a primal animal spirit that relates to your build (protector = bear, hunter = cat, watcher = eagle), but that's utterly a "special effect". It can manifest differently to show its mood or your mood. It can be the literal spirit of an ancestor of yours or a former mentor. It doesn't matter what you say it is and how you interact with it outside of combat, rules-wise. It's a very flexible piece of characterization for a player.
Likewise the rules on familiars for arcane characters. The rules are very strictly formulated so that a familiar doesn't become a remote controlled third hand you can use to shortcut any number of puzzles and traps, but the book which introduces them makes it very clear that the rules aren't intended to hamstring creativity.
Even the attack powers that characters have are subject to creativity in interpretation, leading to theatrical actions in combat. For example, one of the Bard attack powers is "vicious mockery"... you insult your opponent, backing the insult with magic. You can just say "I use vicious mockery on the orc.", which isn't much different from saying "I attack the orc." or "I cast magic missile on the orc."
But playing a Bard and having a power that's based around mocking your opponent practically screams "roleplaying opportunity", doesn't it?
Likewise the rulebooks encourage you to customize how you visualize attack spells and flashy attack moves in order to make them more personal to your character.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
Re: Question on the 4E System
on 2009-10-31 10:47 pm (UTC)Powers are divided into two categories: attacks and utilities. What you're looking at are all attack powers. Very nearly all of the do damage, though some of them don't and for some character classes the damage is just a small bonus compared to what the attack power's main focus is (moving enemies or allies to gain tactical advantages, protecting allies, giving bonuses, etc.) The utility powers are where you will find the sorts of "support" abilities that potentially have immediate combat applications. This doesn't mean that they can only be used in combat, but if they're not something that you can pull out in a dangerous fast-paced situation and do, it won't be rendered as a power.
The support spells in general have been scaled down to avoid the tendency in previous editions of battles being won or lost based on what your cleric and wizard do before the fight starts and then "going nova" at the start of combat, blowing through their big attacks. Now a spell of protection is more likely to be an immediate interrupt that you cast when your ally is threatened, negating or countering that one attack and maybe protecting them for the following turn, instead of something you cast at the start of combat to protect them until it's dispelled. The focus is more on teamwork and how different characters can work together, which makes combat more interesting than the old fashioned "stat battle" where you just keep directly attacking every turn until the enemy is dead.
Things like portal spells, knock, overland travel, and divination spells are still there. They're just handled separately from powers, as "rituals".
As for the question of whether or not 4E would suit your style of play: what kind of game mechanics do you need for roleplaying? What rules do you need to be a very theatrical player and to play in or run a session without battle? 4E's design philosophy is to use rules to make combat exciting and cinematic (which I think it succeeds in) but have the rules get out of the way of roleplaying.
To give you an example, if you're playing as a Shaman, you have a spirit companion. The rules defining what your spirit companion can do in combat are very well defined. Outside of combat? Almost no rules. It's suggested that your spirit companion is a primal animal spirit that relates to your build (protector = bear, hunter = cat, watcher = eagle), but that's utterly a "special effect". It can manifest differently to show its mood or your mood. It can be the literal spirit of an ancestor of yours or a former mentor. It doesn't matter what you say it is and how you interact with it outside of combat, rules-wise. It's a very flexible piece of characterization for a player.
Likewise the rules on familiars for arcane characters. The rules are very strictly formulated so that a familiar doesn't become a remote controlled third hand you can use to shortcut any number of puzzles and traps, but the book which introduces them makes it very clear that the rules aren't intended to hamstring creativity.
Even the attack powers that characters have are subject to creativity in interpretation, leading to theatrical actions in combat. For example, one of the Bard attack powers is "vicious mockery"... you insult your opponent, backing the insult with magic. You can just say "I use vicious mockery on the orc.", which isn't much different from saying "I attack the orc." or "I cast magic missile on the orc."
But playing a Bard and having a power that's based around mocking your opponent practically screams "roleplaying opportunity", doesn't it?
Likewise the rulebooks encourage you to customize how you visualize attack spells and flashy attack moves in order to make them more personal to your character.