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.
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.
That doesn't really follow, actually. Yes, level bonus outstrips stat bonus. This doesn't mean that characters, over time, become more equal in their ability to hit regardless of their original stats. They will be less divergent than in previous editions, but that just means that no one will be worse than they were at level 1. They'll still be just as bad.
In short, if my attack bonus at level 1 is +6 and yours is +4, the absolute difference is 2, and that's what matters. And at level 10 if my attack bonus is +11 and yours is +9, the absolute difference is 2, and that's what matters.
Quote:
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.
Most experienced min maxers do not feel that a 20 is always the best choice for the majority of characters. An 18 created with a 16 +2 from race is usually superior due to the high cost of buying a natural 18 using a point buy. A 16 is considered slightly less useful, but still viable for many builds, though certainly not optimal.
Quote:
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.
This really isn't the case. The difference between a 16 and a 20 is going to be nearly the same in either system. You'd have to do some really, really extreme things to the internal math of the game to make that no longer the case. Plus, "good enough" is a relative concept. You can't make a 16 "good enough" for a guy who could get a 20 if he wanted to, because he's got the 20 available as an option.
There are a few changes to the internal math that could counteract this, but they're awfully extreme. Like making a 16 allow you to hit on a 3+ or so.
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.
You're getting bogged down in semantics (again? still?). 4e "basic attacks" should be called something else, say like "secondary attacks, or "conditional attacks".
A character's at-wills are their basic/primary/principle attacks.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
This is a good example of the types of at-will attacks that I would like to remove.
Its really not an attack. Its a valid question. There are several things you've argued that I think you would stop arguing if you actually played the system a little bit and felt how it works. Specifically, your conviction that 4e is all about getting a 20 in your attack stat, or an 18 if you can't, and your conviction that abilities like Reaping Strike have somehow made basic attacks obsolete. 20s in your main stat are often bad choices due to the high cost of purchasing them, and attacks like Reaping Strike (and most other at wills) are really just basic attacks with the sorts of minor bonuses that in 3e would have been provided by feats. I think that some experience with the system would cause you to change your mind on these matters.
This is a good example of the types of at-will attacks that I would like to remove.
Sure, I get that.
But it's a valid question.
4e is not perfect, and will not meet everyone's gaming needs out of the box (or ever). But before I do any major tinkering in any system, I find it helpful to try it more or less as-is. Then, I have a better feel for the system than I could ever get via armchair analysis. (See: "Monks are horrifically overpowered!")
If you try things out, you can also better-articulate your goal. Once you have a well-articulated goal, you can find better solutions to reach that goal.
I'm absolutely not saying "Try it! You'll love it! It's perfect as-is!" What I am saying is, "Try it before you make major overhauls, because it probably doesn't work during play how it works in your mind."
They will be less divergent than in previous editions, but that just means that no one will be worse than they were at level 1.
You misunderstood the point. This is not meant to say that the wizard should fight as good as the fighter. This was meant to say that in previous editions this would not have worked but looky it works in 4e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Most experienced min maxers do not feel that a 20 is always the best choice for the majority of characters. An 18 created with a 16 +2 from race is usually superior due to the high cost of buying a natural 18 using a point buy. A 16 is considered slightly less useful, but still viable for many builds, though certainly not optimal.
I agree, an 18 is good too - what is your point? You are validating what I said, yet feigning disagreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
This really isn't the case. The difference between a 16 and a 20 is going to be nearly the same in either system. You'd have to do some really, really extreme things to the internal math of the game to make that no longer the case. Plus, "good enough" is a relative concept. You can't make a 16 "good enough" for a guy who could get a 20 if he wanted to, because he's got the 20 available as an option.
Like I said not everyone would be able to ponder the arms race concept. You are right good enough is a relative concept and in fact the point.
In my game, by the third or fourth magic missle into a wall, someone or something is going to come to investigate. Same goes for a clanging axe or hammer attack.
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.
Excellent analysis btw.
Why would it be important that the basic attacks are useless?
I am kinda guessing where you might come from. It's like a feat that gives you a +3 bonus to hit points, accompanied with a second feat that grants you +1 hit points per level (minimum 3).
But there is a difference - There is a cost involved with picking the +3 hit point feats, and it is the same as for the +3 or more hit point feat. Basic Attacks are free. You don't need to expend anything to get access to them. While if you learn a particular at-will power, that means you don't get to have another one.
Aside from this, basic attacks have a use - they are used for opportunity attacks and charge attacks, and often also triggered by certain powers. (The simplest example might be Commanders Strike). (And everyone would love to have an opportunity attack when the situation comes - it's a free swing at your opponent!)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Its really not an attack. Its a valid question. There are several things you've argued that I think you would stop arguing if you actually played the system a little bit and felt how it works. Specifically, your conviction that 4e is all about getting a 20 in your attack stat, or an 18 if you can't, and your conviction that abilities like Reaping Strike have somehow made basic attacks obsolete. 20s in your main stat are often bad choices due to the high cost of purchasing them, and attacks like Reaping Strike (and most other at wills) are really just basic attacks with the sorts of minor bonuses that in 3e would have been provided by feats. I think that some experience with the system would cause you to change your mind on these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
Sure, I get that.
But it's a valid question.
4e is not perfect, and will not meet everyone's gaming needs out of the box (or ever). But before I do any major tinkering in any system, I find it helpful to try it more or less as-is. Then, I have a better feel for the system than I could ever get via armchair analysis. (See: "Monks are horrifically overpowered!")
If you try things out, you can also better-articulate your goal. Once you have a well-articulated goal, you can find better solutions to reach that goal.
I'm absolutely not saying "Try it! You'll love it! It's perfect as-is!" What I am saying is, "Try it before you make major overhauls, because it probably doesn't work during play how it works in your mind."
-O
If I had never played the game would you find that you could easily dismiss my ideas as coming from some inexperienced loon who simply purports change for changes sake? My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game. You can disagree with me, fine. But this line of argument is insulting.
You misunderstood the point. This is not meant to say that the wizard should fight as good as the fighter. This was meant to say that in previous editions this would not have worked but looky it works in 4e.
I'm responding to your arguments about half level bonuses outstripping ability score bonuses. That's irrelevant. What matters is the absolute difference between attack bonuses and between attack bonuses and defenses.
A game where one character having a +1 to attack while another character has a +5 to attack is exactly the same as one character having a +1001 to attack while another character has a +1005. Granting both characters a flat +1000 to their attack bonus doesn't make the +1 character any more viable than he was before. Against equal level challenges, they'll still be hitting on the same number as before. If the +1 was viable before, its viable now, if it was unviable before, its unviable now.
What BAB did was make characters with low attacks grow worse over the course of their career in comparison to characters with better BABs. 4e doesn't make you worse as you level up, unless for some reason you can't afford to improve your attack statistic, and even then the difference maxes out at 3 points. But you argued that 4e would somehow make things even out as attack bonus outstrips attack stat. And mathematically that simply isn't true.
If I had never played the game would you find that you could easily dismiss my ideas as coming from some inexperienced loon who simply purports change for changes sake? My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game. You can disagree with me, fine. But this line of argument is insulting.
Well, then be insulted. You shouldn't be, but I can't stop you.
You're making specific claims. Several of them are carefully linked to the *feel* of various aspects of the game.
If your arguments were purely mathematical or purely based on logic and reason, that would be one thing. But you're also making arguments that are essentially based on the aesthetic experience of the game when played at the table. You are apparently attempting to derive the nature of that aesthetic experience through armchair reasoning. The conclusions you've derived do not mesh with the actual experience of some of the people in this forum.
It is entirely reasonable for them to point out that they literally possess a superior source of information about the game than you possess, and for them to invite you to investigate further before you draw conclusions.
Lets say that you were a nobel prize winning biologist and a master chef, and I brought to you a recipe. You might analyze my recipe, and conclude that it won't taste good. You might base this conclusion on extensive experience in cooking similar dishes. You might base your conclusion on a chemical analysis of the component ingredients and the known chemical interactions between their molecules and human taste buds. But all of this is still not the same as taking a bite of the dish.
The biggest issue that I think you will likely change your mind upon once you try the game out, presuming that opposition hasn't rooted you in your ways, is your belief that martial powers like Reaping Strike don't provide the same aesthetic feel as a basic attack, and your belief that some aesthetic, some feel, some archetype, has been lost by their inclusion as usable at will. Most of these powers boil down to actually being a basic attack, augmented by a minor ability of the sort typically granted by feats in the previous edition. If you didn't feel that Rapid Shot or Two Weapon Fighting created problems in 3e, then the odds are that you won't find that Trin Strike or Dual Strike create problems now. They're close to the same thing as they were before.
Why would it be important that the basic attacks are useless?
I am kinda guessing where you might come from. It's like a feat that gives you a +3 bonus to hit points, accompanied with a second feat that grants you +1 hit points per level (minimum 3).
Yes, if you gain nothing from a basic attack and you gain some minor boon from an at-will why would you use a basic attack unless forced to? A wizard shoots magic missiles why would he ever dream of throwing a shuriken? That is just dumb right. But if Magic missile was a 4d4+INT encounter power and he had no at-will powers. Then he might need to throw a shuriken now and again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
Aside from this, basic attacks have a use - they are used for opportunity attacks and charge attacks, and often also triggered by certain powers. (The simplest example might be Commanders Strike). (And everyone would love to have an opportunity attack when the situation comes - it's a free swing at your opponent!)
Strangely, by removing at-wills all of the maneuvers that you just cited become more powerful - as players add more stat points to STR and DEX. An interesting side effect.
Additionally "tricks" from page 42 of the DMG and other "at-will" basic maneuvers could be used more with that open space (the rounds freed up from sheepishly at-willing your best at-will).
If I had never played the game would you find that you could easily dismiss my ideas as coming from some inexperienced loon who simply purports change for changes sake? My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game. You can disagree with me, fine. But this line of argument is insulting.
I'm not dismissing anything - it's clear that you see some things you don't like in the rules, and are looking for ways to make it more to your taste. That's an admirable goal. Like I said, 4e out of the box (just like 3e out of the box) won't suit everyone's tastes.
I'm not questioning your goals, and I'm not questioning your preferences. But there are a lot of folks offering suggestions to help make this work in ways that are conscious of the game design, and you're more or less dismissing them out of hand.
I mean exactly what I said in my post - I am not saying that playing the game will make you love everything about it. That would be insulting. I am saying that, just like with every game, major tinkering might do things you wouldn't expect. Getting practice and experience will help you learn what to expect.
I'd be telling you the same thing if you were planning to tinker with 1e, RC, 3e, or WFRP. Tinkering and house-ruling are awesome. But it's best to learn a system before you make major changes. I wouldn't make any major changes or customizations to a car engine before I learned how to change my oil and sparkplugs, either.
My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game.
I've read through the entire thread, but I still feel like I'm coming late to the party, so I hope my question doesn't sound impertinent-- but can you clarify what at-wills take from the game?
In my understanding, at-wills are one of the design spaces where a class's schtick resides. Rogue at-wills allow a character to stab and slip away, a wizard's at-wills allow a character to blast or befuddle at range, and so forth. The at-wills are like the class features-- they're what the class does instinctively (or first nature, or with practiced ease, whatever idiom floats your boat). I think there could stand to be a few more choices in at-wills for each class, but the supplements and Dragon are making me happy so far, and the mechanics for the existing at-wills seem robust enough to take a fair amount of refluffing in the interest of better portraying particular character concepts.
I guess I just don't understand how currently having the option to use at-will A, at-will B, or a basic attack is worse than only having the option to use a basic attack. What are at-wills taking away?
I'm not dismissing anything - it's clear that you see some things you don't like in the rules, and are looking for ways to make it more to your taste. That's an admirable goal. Like I said, 4e out of the box (just like 3e out of the box) won't suit everyone's tastes.
I think it might be good for you to go back and read what you have written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
I'm not questioning your goals, and I'm not questioning your preferences. But there are a lot of folks offering suggestions to help make this work in ways that are conscious of the game design, and you're more or less dismissing them out of hand.
Yes, if you gain nothing from a basic attack and you gain some minor boon from an at-will why would you use a basic attack unless forced to? A wizard shoots magic missiles why would he ever dream of throwing a shuriken? That is just dumb right. But if Magic missile was a 4d4+INT encounter power and he had no at-will powers. Then he might need to throw a shuriken now and again.
I'm a wizard not a ninja. Why the hell would I want to throw a shuriken?
Quote:
Strangely, by removing at-wills all of the maneuvers that you just cited become more powerful - as players add more stat points to STR and DEX. An interesting side effect.
Seems to be that you are basically advocating magic magic using classes weaker and martial classes stronger.
The points you put into STR and DEX have to come from somewhere. So you will end up with characters being weaker in their primary casting stats because those stats are less useful. Or having even less variety among casters because they will all be forced to have Str, Dex, and 1 casting stat. Dumping Con, and 2 of their mental stats. Sounds like the will have less variety under your system.
Quote:
Additionally "tricks" from page 42 of the DMG and other "at-will" basic maneuvers could be used more with that open space (the rounds freed up from sheepishly at-willing your best at-will).
I don't "sheepishly" doing anything. I gleefully blast away with my arcane might, because I'm not being reduced to sticks and stones like a fool who doesn't know how to cast spells.
Some classes can make excellent use of basic attacks (primarily the martial based classes) while others do not (primarly the arcane classes).
I have a wizard who makes a basic melee attack as well as most melee focused characters, but it was a choice. You shouldn't force people into making every character a melee or bow fighter as well as whatever their class attack theme is supposed to be.
You are simply reducing the number of viable builds for characters, and making the combats drag out more.
The more you argue for it, the more poorly thought it seems. You strip the classes of their basic powers and force them to use the weakest attacks in the game and claim that it opens up more "variety". I don't need to find out how many ways my wizard or rogue can suck with a basic attack they weren't meant to use.
Last edited by Caliban; 25th February 2009 at 08:50 PM..
I've read through the entire thread, but I still feel like I'm coming late to the party, so I hope my question doesn't sound impertinent-- but can you clarify what at-wills take from the game?
Well, I am afraid that if you did not get it from reading the last 4 pages then you may not get it at all. I think most people get it, it just is not to some people's taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alas
I guess I just don't understand how currently having the option to use at-will A, at-will B, or a basic attack is worse than only having the option to use a basic attack. What are at-wills taking away?
An interesting solution from another thread was to give every class 10 at-will power level encounter powers. With the assumption that combat would go 10 rounds and that then the player would have just as many options to use with their single bloated stat. I actually like this solution. It deals with the fundamentally-designed-in-the-game-stat-bloat in a sensible way and makes characters have plenty of options.
I think I've gotten the major points, and to me, what the OP is looking for is simply something that D&D (particularly 4e) doesn't do very well. One of 4e's biggest strengths, I feel, was in looking at what D&D does well, and what it does poorly, and stop doing the latter to do more of the former.
For instance, GURPS handles this in a manner that seems like it would be to the OP's liking. All attacks which physically hit the target (as opposed to sway it's mind, or poison it's lungs) are determined by Dexterity plus skill. Thus, if a mage wants to be good at tossing a lot of missile spells, he will need a good DEX, which would also pay off in using weapons. Then, on top of that, GURPS has a wide variety of skills, which each individually cost very little out of your character point allotment. Someone can get a marginal skill pretty easily, though the specialist will have to spend a bunch of points. Thus, it is easy for everyone to have a passable set of backup combat skills.
GURPS also uses a much more flexible time system than D&D, in that you will be able to attack and defend each round (which is a second) with most melee weapons, but a powerful ranged spell, like an Explosive Fireball, will need to be charged for 3 seconds, aimed for a second, and then released.
Thus, the system lets you balance powerful magical effects versus mundane martial attacks fairly easily. The powerful effects can take longer to create, as well as requiring more skill points to learn. The less potent attacks can be used more often, and require less skill point investiture.
What GURPS does not do well is allow you to make iconic, easy to run characters quickly. Unless you are very practiced with the system, it can take HOURS to generate a character. In addition, character generation is a skill in GURPS (Character Optimizers in D&D have nothing on GURPS). It is possible to create weak, virtually useless characters, or, in the absence of good supervision, broken, hideously over-powered characters. GURPS also can allow you to throw archetypes on their ear. The mage with invisibility and death touch (and little else), who goes around killing everyone by tapping them, or the mage with Enlarge Self who simply grows to giant size and crushes his enemies, but knows very little other magic.
D&D 4e has rules which replicate a particular type of epic fantasy feel, with an emphasis on character growth in power, and is easy to play, learn, and run. I think that altering the system in this manner could do a great deal of violence to the system's ability to meet those goals (but, of course, it is your game).
I think it might be good for you to go back and read what you have written.
Again, go back and read what I have written.
I've read the entire thread, and I don't know how I can be more clear or more helpful. It took a bit to grasp what you're looking for - and I'm not even sure I'm 100% clear on that now - but it seems like you're treating criticism and questions as hostility.
So - good luck to you. I hope you find a way to make this work for you.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
