General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
(1) Are you only worried about this insofar as spellcasters are concerned? You haven't mentioned anyone other than wizards and clerics.
It doesn't matter if you are martial, arcane, divine, primal, elemental, shadow, ki or whatever other power sources they are going to come up with. Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation. This makes having characters that do not fit the mold of those at-wills outside of RAW and a limitation of the game system. So no I don't really care if they are martial, martial characters should do their heavy hits less often too, it doesn't matter what power source you are. Why have a special attack at will is not very special. Not to mention when it straight jackets your character creation. When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
(2) What options do at-wills prevent? What archetypes are blocked by 4e that are also enabled by the system you're proposing? You mentioned the elf archer cleric, but it's pretty clear that this build works fine, at least IMHO. Give me some more examples.
Well the cleric with a bow is just an example. But essentially any character whose at-will powers are better than simply making a character with a sword or whatever weapon the player wants. Not to mention the flash bang of certain at-wills make the game feel a lot more magical as Cadfan illustrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
(3) Why is it preferable to eliminate at-wills entirely, as opposed to increasing the number of encounter powers and leaving at-wills as-is?
This is another solution. A pretty good one to boot. It would give some more variety to players out of the starting gates. It does nothing for the endless magical effects (or ninja effects for martial) stuff though.
I'm going to try and reiterate this.
If at-wills are removed several things happen.
--> I think we touched on all of the effects. Some are very beneficial and there are a couple of stumbles. In my opinion there are more benefits than stumbles.
So here is a list:
1. Basic attacks become the vanilla attack as opposed to at-wills.
2. Different weapons can be used without becoming sub-par options to a classes at-will powers.
3. STR and DEX become more important in character creation.
4. Basic attacks are less tactical but speed up real time grind.
I think that is it.
1. Hard to see how this is a "beneficial effect" in and of itself. I think your point is that you've made the current at-wills feel more "special" by changing them to encounter powers, but how is that really any different than just adding new encounter powers?
2. Seems a slightly roundabout way of stating that you'd prefer to see all or most characters using weapons more often. This is only a "beneficial effect" if that's your personal taste. (see below)
3. Really hard to see how this is a "beneficial effect" in and of itself. What, you just like Str and Dex?
4. I don't find the current at-wills significantly slow down combat or increase "grind". Indeed compared to endless basic attacks they may reduce grind since their extra little bonuses can help end combat sooner (and at least promise to keep it more interesting).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
This reminds me of the old arguments about the ranger and the paladin being too magical. It was such a controversy that they published alternate versions in complete warrior that were not magically bent. I suppose that the game now is more keyed in the direction of lazer beam clerics and reaping strike fighters. These are cool effects but they seem like they should not be happening at-will. Instead, every once in an while in an encounter seems more appropriate.
At-wills simply gives the game a completely different feel than D&D once had. If there is anything that gives 4e its feel it is the application of at-wills.
This seems to me to be the heart of the issue and most of the stuff about basic attacks and stats and weapons and archetypes is pretty peripheral. You prefer a style where some characters' "output" is less uniform, in particular it seems where spellcasting classes have much bigger but infrequent "booms" and are forced to fall back to much less effective weapons use fairly often.
That's fine. It is true that the 4e system does not support that style very well, because 4e consciously tries to give every player character something interesting to do almost all of the time and a way to contribute to party effectiveness roughly equal to everyone else in the party. The "boom and bust" wizard does not fit well into that scheme.
The one thing that I fundamentally disagree with is that this design direction leads to less space for different character archetypes. Partially this is a matter of terminology, since I think what you're expressing is a desire for a different style of play mechanics which has nothing to do with what I think of as character archetypes. "Wizard who has to shoot a crossbow after running out of spells" is not, to me, a character archetype so much as an artifact of a particular system of mechanics. One that we've all gotten used to over time so it may seem familiar and comfortable, but not really a character archetype if you look at it more closely.
Even if you want to insist that the crossbow-wizard is indeed an archetype, I don't see how removing at-wills leads to space for more archetypes. Even if it reopens the crossbow-wizard "archetype", it closes down the "magic missile all day" wizard archetype... that may be one that you personally dislike, but I think you have to regard it as an archetype that is lost if the crossbow-wizard is an archetype that is gained.
I think there might be a paradigm problem here. In 4e, at-wills are that character's basic attacks. They're the bread and butter of that particular class. They're not suppose to be flashy or very awesome, you have encounters and dailies for that, those are the special powers, not at-wills. "Basic Attack" is just stuff that you do when you make an OA or a charge or when doing something that your class is not good at.
Magic missile? It's just a wizard's normal attack comparable to a fighter's sword swing.
It doesn't matter if you are martial, arcane, divine, primal, elemental, shadow, ki or whatever other power sources they are going to come up with. Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation. This makes having characters that do not fit the mold of those at-wills outside of RAW and a limitation of the game system.
<snip>
This is another solution. A pretty good one to boot. It would give some more variety to players out of the starting gates. It does nothing for the endless magical effects (or ninja effects for martial) stuff though.
So maybe to get closer to the style of play you want you could just restrict all classes to using the weapon-based, non-ninja martial at-wills that you like the best. The wizard will still fall back to his crossbow instead of to magic missile, but at least his damage output and "specials" won't drop off so much compared to making him just shoot it using ranged basic attack.
You'd probably still need to allow the character to use their primary/secondary stats for attack and damage with these at-wills, otherwise they will just be at too much of a disadvantage vs. the martial classes that already have Strength and Dexterity as primary stats. (I'm sensing that you want to emphasize Strength and Dexterity for basically the same reason you want to increase the use of weapons, basically for thematic reasons; it offends you if a wizard can use his Intelligence to swing a sword. But I think this is the easiest compromise to make to get close to where you want to go without having to rewrite fundamental parts of the system.)
I'm sensing that you want to emphasize Strength and Dexterity for basically the same reason you want to increase the use of weapons, basically for thematic reasons; it offends you if a wizard can use his Intelligence to swing a sword. But I think this is the easiest compromise to make to get close to where you want to go without having to rewrite fundamental parts of the system.
Not to mention classes that use a different stat, even in melee with weapons:
Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation. This makes having characters that do not fit the mold of those at-wills outside of RAW and a limitation of the game system. So no I don't really care if they are martial, martial characters should do their heavy hits less often too, it doesn't matter what power source you are. Why have a special attack at will is not very special. Not to mention when it straight jackets your character creation. When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.
Hold up a sec, are you trying to say that only having basic attacks as at wills some how gives you more options for character creation than having basic attacks plus the choice of other things you can do? That somehow by limiting everyone to whacking things with sticks you've somehow created a environment that frees you up to make any character you want?
Wizard A can cast scorching burst and magic missle, Wizard B can cast cloud of daggers and thunderwave.
or....
Wizard X can ineffectually whack things with a stick and ineffectually fling rocks, Wizard Y can ineffectually whack things with a stick and ineffectually fling rocks.
Which group has been more straightjacketed at character creation?
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
I understand what is being said.
The thing is the typical 4E fight has a lot more rounds than one in previous editions. Wizards killed or were killed back then. If the only ones who did the same thing all day were people using weapons. Fight reached the danger zone quick or draaaaaagged on. Everything was random.
4E is a different monster. Instead of the caster casting two spells then making mostly useless actions while the weapon users attack, attack and attack, every action matters. All classes have been made equal in style and the damage model is fixed. Each character is intended to use all his encounter powers and use at-will as its other actions. Basic attacks were not intended for the formula for most characters. It unbalances things.
It doesn't matter if you are martial, arcane, divine, primal, elemental, shadow, ki or whatever other power sources they are going to come up with. Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation.
Really...short of rangers twin strikeing all the time I can't think of a single class built around 1 at will...wizards (one of the two classes you complained about) right now has the most options in there at wills...
Quote:
Why have a special attack at will is not very special.
they are not ment to be special...they are ment to be your bread and butter...
example: Fireing off a small bolt of arcane energy (magic missle) is easy, but focusing that energy into a bolt of real force (force orb) is slightly more taxing...trying to conjur and maintian a ball of fire (Flaming sphear) takes even more...
Quote:
Not to mention when it straight jackets your character creation. When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.
let me pull out the problme here...
Quote:
You may prefer those limitation, I like options
by RAW as a wizard right now I have 2 at wills chosen from 6 options...how many do I have your way??
Quote:
Well the cleric with a bow is just an example. But essentially any character whose at-will powers are better than simply making a character with a sword or whatever weapon the player wants.
what if the OPTION the player is going for has nothing to do with weapons? You want your weapon to matter...but what if someone else at the same table does not??
Quote:
It does nothing for the endless magical effects (or ninja effects for martial) stuff though.
why would my magic weilder want to run out of magic???
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
This reminds me of the old arguments about the ranger and the paladin being too magical. It was such a controversy that they published alternate versions in complete warrior that were not magically bent.
Thanks. I'm basically sympathetic to the desire to create what I'm going to call dual power source characters, specifically, characters who are martial with a splash of magic. I don't think that messing with the at will system is the way to go about it though.
I think that, if you want to create the feel of a character that you seem to be looking for, your best bet is probably this: take at wills from a martial class, but everything else from an arcane class.
Then just declare that you get to use your primary stat as your attack stat no matter what. From where I sit, your primary stat is just a number. If its balanced to have a +4 at a given level, then just assign a +4 to the relevant tasks and don't worry about where it came from.
This sort of character should give you basically what you are looking for. A character who is mostly mundane but who pulls out powerful magic when he's in a tight spot.
It won't help you if you're even offended by the power level of Reaping Strike being used at will, but I don't think that should bother you. The martial at wills are mostly things you could accomplish in 3e with a basic melee attack and a feat.
The only damage it will do to the game is that it will make it so that your character might not fill his combat role very effectively, particularly at low levels, and particularly if you've chosen at wills from a martial class very different from your true class.
So what would the effect of removing the at-wills be? It would change character creation for sure. It may make characters invest in strength or dexterity more, when they normally would not have. This will lower the primary stat to do so (unless of course you have a class that needs one of those stats). Doing this may alter the 50% to hit rate assumption and make it more difficult to be competent.
The problem is that it won't change things for the classes that already invest heavily in Strength or Dex. The PHB(*) Fighter will barely notice the difference: none of his at-will attacks do more damage than his basic attack. And the Fighter in particular is not considered by many to be a weak class.
(*) Martiial Power changes this quite a bit.
The Warlock on the other hand will notice it an awful lot. If she doesn't invest in Str or Dex, she is limited to her encounter and daily powers; if she does so invest, she loses points to spend in her primary stat, so her encounters and daily powers are now less likely to hit and do less damage.
4e is currently balanced assuming that characters can use their primary attack stat almost all the time. In 4e battles, especially at low level or against elites and solos, PCs spend a lot of time using their at-wills to wear down enemies HP. They don't have enough encounters or dailies to end the fight without it.
The effect of your proposed rule change is that you have will make the non-Strength based classes much weaker than those based on other Strength. How do you intend to rebalance the classes? If you don't, I expect your players to mainly play Fighters, Warlords, Strength-Clerics and -Paladins, Brutal Scoundrel Rogues and Elven Bow Clerics.
Quote:
A positive effect is that it will open up design for character types that are sub-par in the current rule set.
And a negative effect will be to close off design for most of the character types currently in the rules.
Last edited by Scholar & Brutalman; 25th February 2009 at 03:43 AM..
It doesn't matter if you are martial, arcane, divine, primal, elemental, shadow, ki or whatever other power sources they are going to come up with. Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation. This makes having characters that do not fit the mold of those at-wills outside of RAW and a limitation of the game system. So no I don't really care if they are martial, martial characters should do their heavy hits less often too, it doesn't matter what power source you are. Why have a special attack at will is not very special. Not to mention when it straight jackets your character creation. When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.
Well the cleric with a bow is just an example. But essentially any character whose at-will powers are better than simply making a character with a sword or whatever weapon the player wants. Not to mention the flash bang of certain at-wills make the game feel a lot more magical as Cadfan illustrated.
And, with these two answers, I think I get the crux of what you're saying.
I don't think you want more options, you want potentially non-optimal options to be more viable. In other words, you want other options. Because what you're proposing - with making everyone resort to basic attacks and focusing on Str/Dex - that's not really more options. It's less options, but options of a type you find more appealing.
I think this confusion is really muddling the issue.
Quote:
This is another solution. A pretty good one to boot. It would give some more variety to players out of the starting gates. It does nothing for the endless magical effects (or ninja effects for martial) stuff though.
Forgive me if this has been answered - but have you played 4e yet? Or is this mostly armchair speculation?
Even with an increase to starting with 3 encounters, a character will eventually cap out at 6 encounter powers. If the assumption is 12 round encounters, at BEST, you have 50% at-will [a bit less when dailies are used, but rarely would you use more than 1 daily per encounter]. So, at least half the time ... EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME. The only difference is weapon selection, which is limited to: (a) STR or DEX, (b) +2 or +3 prof, (c) 1-H or 2-H. Which weapon you use will be based in part by whether you want to spend a feat to get the "best" weapon, or you just stick with what you have.
Of course, in that system, there are a LOT of weapons that wouldn't get used. Part of the reason to restrict weapon types for certain characters is to encourage archetypes to use those weapons. Few people would actually use a dagger, but it's a solid option for a rogue.
Ultimatly, it would seem to hurt a lot of archetypes if every character was "what weapon do you use half the time?". And, having basic attacks that do LESS than at-wills will only make the encounters longer, making a larger percentage of your attacks into basic weapon based attacks and thus making every character EXACTLY the same, with a few cool things it can do on occaision. The number of spells that wizards and clerics had in 3x allowed them to eventually move away from being weapon wielders if they wanted to (in the case of the cleric, both then, and now, you had the option of being a weapon wielding type or not.) Heck, they introduced feats to allow wizards access to at-will magical powers (reserve feats). They created the warlock with it's eldritch blast. Now, in those cases the touch attacks usually required Dex based attacks, but there were a number of other issues at work (BAB wasn't the same across all classes, touch AC could be a lot lower than actual AC, etc).
Basically, removing at-wills makes more characters with MAD, and limits any "archetypes" to "stuff I do less than half the time in any given fight". Every character is EITHER: STR/DEX based, or forced to be a gish of some type. There are no wizards, only fighters/crossbowmen who occaisionally use magic. No matter what level you get to, unless there is a ridiculous bloat of daily and encounter powers, you will have a significant portion of time spent using a weapon. So, ANY class that has a primary attack stat and secondary stat that doesn't have one of them as STR or DEX, you've completely neutered them. A warlock, for example, can't be CHA/INT or CHA/CON or CON/INT because they'll be completely ineffective half of the battle. Now, you can have EVERY build for EVERY class have STR and/or DEX involved, but then you have an effect on the balance of races, and make all the classes much more similar.
More classes, more at-will choices for those classes, THAT is what gives you more archetypes. Does it really matter if it's a CLERIC wielding a bow, and not a ranger MC'd into cleric to get a few Cleric powers? That person would be using the bow most of the time, and would have a limited number of encounter powers.
In fact, what you'd probably want to do with this: All the non-martial classes are multiclass only. That is sort of what this would look like. Everyone would be something like a warlord, fighter, ranger or rogue. Then there is the wizard who would be a multiclass martial/wizard that starts with less than any martial class gets.
I don't confuse class with archtype. I ran a doppleganger thief in a game last year. She wasn't a Rogue or even multiclassed as Rogue, but was effective at being sneaky and manipulative.
You want an archtype that is good at something the obvious class isn't? Pick a different class and have your character call himself whatever you want. I've found it pretty effective for mixing things up a bit.
This is actually a very useful an cool thing to do. A player in a game I ran wanted to be an arcane striker but didn't want to be a warlock. So he made an eladrin rogue and reskinned it as a wizard. All of his attacks were described as magical. A friend of mine out west had a player in his group who did the same thing but as a stage magician-- he was actually a rogue but pretended to be a powerful wizard.
If I were to make an archer cleric, I'd either go with cleric and dump stat strength and take dex instead and then multiclass into ranger. Or start as a ranger and multiclass into cleric (dump statting strength in favour of wisdom). It would depend on whether I wanted to emphasize cleric powers or not.
If I wanted to remake the old basic d&d elf-- half fighter, half wizard, I'd likely go with a rogue multiclassed into warlock (or sorcerer depending on what that feat ends up giving you). The lighter armour of the rogue fits the archetype. The damage output is more in line with old school fighters being the high damage dealers rather than defenders. I might even take a Half Elf-- call it and elf-- and use the extra at will as an encounter power to add more magic off the hop.
I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.
In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.
Similarly, if there are flavor issues with the current at-will abilities, it may be possible to introduce new at-will abilities with the proper flavor: fighter at-wills that simply deal more damage instead of having additional effects, or wizard at-wills that allow the character to use Intelligence with a weapon attack.
When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.
This I just don't understand
Okay, out of all the at-wills in the game these are the ones who are affected by weapon selection....
Fighter
Brash Strike (gain a bonus with certain weapons)
Reaping Strike (gain Bonus with two-handed weapon)
Dual Strike (must use two weapons)
Tide of Iron (must use a shield)
Ranger
Twin Strike (must use ranged weapon or two weapons)
Careful Attack (must use ranged weapon or two weapons)
Rogue
Piercing Strike (must use light blade)
Riposte Strike (must use light blade)
Deft Strike (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)
Sly Slourish (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)
Disheartening Strike (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)
The ranger has two whole at-wills that have a requirement that he use two weapons, which is the rangers melee shtick in 4E.
The fighter has one power that actually give you a benefit for using specific weapons, Brash Strike. Those weapons are the ax, hammer, and mace weapon groups. Which for the fighter basically only rules out heavy blades or more rarely polearms. Its a power designed to give axe, hammer, and mace fighters a big boost due to their innate weaknesses prior to Martial power. And it fits thematically with the barbarian-ish style of Invigorating Fighters. The fighter has a power that makes it much more useful if you use a two handed weapon of any kind. And then the class has a power requiring two weapons and a power requiring a shield. Which means that the final three don't limit you in weapon selection, but give you advantages in fighting style.
And then we have the rogue. All of whose at wills (and powers in total) have weapon restrictions. Because the rogue has the most potent one target damage dealing powers in the entire game. And it would be hugely unbalancing for them to get to use their powers with a bastard sword or an executioner's axe. So they have restrictions for overall game balance reasons.
So some of the ranger at-wills restrictions help define the rangers combat techniques. The rogue's at-wills restrictions give the class balance. And the fighter's at-wills actually give the fighter a reason to pick from a wide variety of weapons.
Yeesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.
In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.
Similarly, if there are flavor issues with the current at-will abilities, it may be possible to introduce new at-will abilities with the proper flavor: fighter at-wills that simply deal more damage instead of having additional effects, or wizard at-wills that allow the character to use Intelligence with a weapon attack.
Now these idea I can get behind.
__________________ "Well, no, I wasn't actually one of the original members of Pink Floyd." - Giles
Even with an increase to starting with 3 encounters, a character will eventually cap out at 6 encounter powers. If the assumption is 12 round encounters, at BEST, you have 50% at-will [a bit less when dailies are used, but rarely would you use more than 1 daily per encounter]. So, at least half the time ... EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME. The only difference is weapon selection, which is limited to: (a) STR or DEX, (b) +2 or +3 prof, (c) 1-H or 2-H. Which weapon you use will be based in part by whether you want to spend a feat to get the "best" weapon, or you just stick with what you have.
Let me first say, excellent analysis.
Yes but also by that level (30) you should have some magic items that would fill in the other 12 rounds of combat. Not to mention your daily powers. I agree, the advantage of 4e, "EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME" and this is how this system will work. As you go up in level your level bonus will out-weigh your stat bonus (in most cases). The characters will be much more potent with a weapon than in previous editions. This really starts to separate around paragon tier when the level bonus begins to outstrip the stat bonus.
If the we had BAB like in previous editions I don't think an idea like this would have worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterKovacs
Ultimatly, it would seem to hurt a lot of archetypes if every character was "what weapon do you use half the time?". And, having basic attacks that do LESS than at-wills will only make the encounters longer, making a larger percentage of your attacks into basic weapon based attacks and thus making every character EXACTLY the same, with a few cool things it can do on occaision.
Yes and no, I agree that it could take a combat more rounds to complete... well maybe, remember you now begin with 3 encounter powers. So if those blast off in the first few rounds you could be left with just the scraps, it could make combats fewer rounds it depends... But in general if the fight gets past the encounter powers initial push it could drag on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterKovacs
The number of spells that wizards and clerics had in 3x allowed them to eventually move away from being weapon wielders if they wanted to (in the case of the cleric, both then, and now, you had the option of being a weapon wielding type or not.) Heck, they introduced feats to allow wizards access to at-will magical powers (reserve feats). They created the warlock with it's eldritch blast. Now, in those cases the touch attacks usually required Dex based attacks, but there were a number of other issues at work (BAB wasn't the same across all classes, touch AC could be a lot lower than actual AC, etc).
I like the concept of reserve feats and if you go here you can see a discussion about them and this "no at-wills idea".
Basically the idea is use reserve feats to give extra uses of a 1st level at-will power during an encounter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterKovacs
Basically, removing at-wills makes more characters with MAD, and limits any "archetypes" to "stuff I do less than half the time in any given fight". Every character is EITHER: STR/DEX based, or forced to be a gish of some type. There are no wizards, only fighters/crossbowmen who occaisionally use magic. No matter what level you get to, unless there is a ridiculous bloat of daily and encounter powers, you will have a significant portion of time spent using a weapon. So, ANY class that has a primary attack stat and secondary stat that doesn't have one of them as STR or DEX, you've completely neutered them. A warlock, for example, can't be CHA/INT or CHA/CON or CON/INT because they'll be completely ineffective half of the battle. Now, you can have EVERY build for EVERY class have STR and/or DEX involved, but then you have an effect on the balance of races, and make all the classes much more similar.
I agree it does cause a bit of MAD. Here is an interesting thing though. 4e is all about maximizing your one stat 20 nearly all the time if you have to go 18. If you introduce MAD, this may be a little difficult for some to ponder, you actually lower the arms race for everyone including those that have to focus solely on a single stat. If a 16 is good enough for one character it can be good enough for another - including the fighter who only really has to focus on a single stat. I am not saying that every fighter will be made like this but they could be made like this. In this case MAD, may actually may be good for 4e.
I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.
Yes 100% agreement here. And that is an interesting solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.
This is a good idea and has merit but it seems a lot more difficult than simply removing all at wills and converting them to bonus 1st level encounter powers (basically converting them as is to the 21st level power level). Wala, done.
Okay, out of all the at-wills in the game these are the ones who are affected by weapon selection....
I think you grasped only part of the point. At-will powers that are better than using a basic attack make using a basic attack useless which in turn makes certain options blatantly sub-par. This is obvious. However, you seem to think the point was only at-wills that require a specific weapon cannot be used with a different type of weapon. A valid point but again only part of the point.
I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat.
Why is this a bad thing? D&D has always featured strong fighters, smart wizards, agile rogues (except when they were called thieves), etc. 4e's rather elegant mechanics that tie a class's traditional primary stat directly to combat performance --by making it determine both to-hit and damage bonus-- is, well, rather elegant.
What are the benefits of messing with this?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
