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.
I have no comment on the warlock, I have not seen them enough in play to really comment. The restoration of eldritch blast seems ok. For the Wizard, I would go with standard action recharge. Wizard powers in 4e tend to be hit or miss and if recharge is too hard then playing a wizard could become an excerise in frustration.
I would also chime in that in the wizard Dailies need more oomph. They will miss quite often so when they work then need to work well.
This would get wizard players to actually have a lower INT if they wanted because they knew they can recharge their spells during an encounter. So hitting with them is not as, "Holy crap, I have to hit with this power right now or I will lose it forever".
I'm kind of surprised that, having settled on everyone having at-will powers, they didn't come up with some non-spell powers for Wizards. Why couldn't they have at-wills that affected crossbows or daggers or whatever? Maybe a dagger attacks that adds Int to damage and causes the enemy to take -1 on defenses if he doesn't step back next round, or something. I don't see any reason why a Wizard couldn't secondarily have powers related to crossbows or darts.
It is still a problem even if the had an INT based weapon at-will power that they could select.
The thing many have pointed out though, is that it really doesn't. It adds new archetypes, but it also ruins existing archetypes ... unless you implement fixes that make it so that a character never has to actually use their basic attacks, otherwise that archetype is gone.
It restores, some of the original D&D feel. You may prefer the new feel and I am sure that their are a ton of people who do. So I don't want to knock your play style. But to satisfy you, I am going to include a reserve feat that allows you to use a lesser version of powers twice an encounter and at 16th thrice during an encounter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterKovacs
It just seems odd that the goal is to get rid of at-wills to make them have to use basic attacks ... but then you have to make it so that they never really will be making basic attacks (unless they want to), in order to make it balanced in the 4e system.
One of the problems with this is the option of multiclassing. A class with "good" at-wills and weaker encounter/dailies will steal powers from the class with more powerful encounters and dailies that balance out the weaker at-wills.
This is a good reason to make the wizard fix (if it winds up being +1 damage die to all powers) a class feature or a wizard feat rather than actually modify the powers.
Except the powers I suggested had no visible effects and could just as easily be described as "smart fighting" or whatever you prefer, instead of "magic".
I prefer the feel of characters being able to do whatever a commoner could do but better, not a hey I am smart so I can fight really good. That seems weird. I don't want a militant wizard unless I sacrifice my spell power to do it (a lower INT for a higher STR or DEX). By this the wizard can be just as good at fighting as the fighter, his bonuses would be very close to theirs. Fundamentally, I feel, the wizard should be worse at fighting than a fighter. Making it so that a wizard is as good at fighting as a fighter does not fix the issue I think it exasperates it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik Svanberg
It's simple, alright, but it's not a fix.
Fair enough, from your position that is understandable.
Allow me to present an analogy, just in case anyone hasn't got it already.
Chocolate is special.
If you have chocolate with every meal, it will cease to be special.
If Christmas was every day, it is a chore and not a pleasant thing. Too much of a good thing can make that thing not any good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zustiur
Like Sadrik, I have toyed with the idea of removing at-will powers in some manner. I find all their finicky effects to be a significant factor in battle-grind. Particularly for martial characters, but also for some of the others. Removing at-wills probably won't speed up the combat in terms of rounds, but it may speed it up in terms of real elapsed time. Less counting of when effects start and stop, and all the tiny bonuses or penalties that they inflict, more getting on with the job of actually fighting.
This will make the rounds go faster. Absolutely. Now it may increase the number of rounds in a battle and HP may be a bit bloated as you have commented below. Lowering the HP a bit may introduce a bit of swingyness as others have pointed out but it will make fights faster and more deadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zustiur
The way I envisioned the changes is as follows:
Your changes are more sweeping than mine but sure, its your game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zustiur
Were I in the same location as Sadrik, I'd volunteer to test his version, but I'm on the other side of the world. Nevermind.
Its not about how interesting the individual powers are, viewed in a vacuum.
Cadfan, you see, when you say this I am thinking the exact opposite of what you intend. 4e at-will powers are in a vacuum and balanced within that vacuum. How do wizards with powers to blast endlessly affect the game world? I don't think that that was figured into their "balance".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Its about how interesting the character as a whole is, viewed in total. Having things that you can do whenever you like makes your character, overall, more interesting.
You can still make an attack whenever you like, it is just a more mundane attack, not a magical or wuxia-like one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Reaping Strike might not be as awesome as an at will power in comparison to how awesome it would be if we enhanced it and made it an encounter power, but so what?
So what? Again a weak power that is "spammed" is not as interesting as one that is more limited and more powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
And its more important that my character be cool than that his attack powers be cool viewed in a vacuum and unconnected to him.
Doing your three weak at-will powers interspersed between your one encounter power is not as interesting as doing FOUR encounter powers (human bonus would give an extra encounter instead of at will) interspersed between your basic attacks. You may have a different feel for this I do but I think that their is a pretty solid group of people out there that may like if not even prefer this concept.
I prefer the feel of characters being able to do whatever a commoner could do but better, not a hey I am smart so I can fight really good. That seems weird. I don't want a militant wizard unless I sacrifice my spell power to do it (a lower INT for a higher STR or DEX). By this the wizard can be just as good at fighting as the fighter, his bonuses would be very close to theirs. Fundamentally, I feel, the wizard should be worse at fighting than a fighter. Making it so that a wizard is as good at fighting as a fighter does not fix the issue I think it exasperates it!
Fair enough, from your position that is understandable.
Ok, so wizards shall not be allowed to use magic, and they shall not be allowed to fight as well as fighters. Got it. What you're saying is "don't play a wizard".
My suggestion would not grant wizards any new weapon proficiencies, and they certainly wouldn't get the fighters' bonus to one or two-handed weapons. So a wizard would still be behind the fighter, no matter what. To even get close to a fighter he would have to spend a feat to learn how to swing a martial or superior weapon, and even then he'd still not be as good as a fighter.
Also, using Intelligence to fight isn't any stranger than using Charisma or Wisdom or Dexterity. Swordmages do it all the time.
Ok Sadrik, instead of bickering about the feel of this change, lets see what the "math" says.
Lets create two characters: Bob the Fighter and Joe the Wizard.
Bob has an 18 str, fights longsword & shield, and the rest of his stats are negligible. He picks Cleave, Tide of Iron, Reaping Strike (human), Spinning Sweep (all E) and Brute Strike (D)
Joe has an 18 Int, 8 str, 12 dex. He has a crossbow and a a wand implement. He picks Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Cloud of Daggers (human), Force Orb (all E), Sleep and Acid Arrow.
Lets do some comparisons.
At 1st level, the fighter has a few interesting combat options. If two foes are lined up, he can hit one for 2d8+4 damage and his buddy for 4, he can push a foe and move (along with his 2d8+4) or knock the foe prone and do 2d8+4. Or he can once/day do 3d8+4.
His average damage with one of his attack is (4.5 x2 +4 or 13 damage). If he fights a level 1 foe, like a kobold skirmisher (27 hp/13 bld) He could effectively take him down in 2 rounds barring a miss (one attack bloodies, one attack kills). In one encounter, he effectively opens with four 13 point attacks (+/-) before resorting to his 8 pt basics.
Joe, Otoh, begins with magic missile (4d4+4, avg 14), moves onto ray of frost (2d6+4, 11 hp), cloud of daggers (2d6+4, 11), and finally force orb (2d8+4, 13 + 1d10+4, 9, adjacent) Again, assuming all four hit, he's done average damage of 49 damage to the primary target (as well as slowed him for one rd and done 1-2 pts of dmg from CoD). His first two attacks nearly cleaned up our kobold skirmisher.
In fact, If Bob and Joe were out-numbered 2-1 by skirmishers and did the "always hit/average damage) they could take out the kobolds alone in five rounds tops without resorting to their dailies. (total damage output from their eight encounter powers: 101 hp, total kobold hp 108) and this is ignoring the residual damage from CoD and the carry-over damage from cleave, as well as OAs and APs.
And that's two PCs alone; add a rogue (with his sneak attack dice), a cleric, and another striker (lets say a warlock with eldrich blast and warlocks curse) and those poor kobolds are toast! Probably in three rounds without resorting to a daily.
I guess that solves the "combat-speed" problem too.
Now, here are more things to consider:
1.) Are all encounter powers equal? At 13th level, you must swap out an encounter power to gain a 13th level power. Do I get to swap out one of my "super at-wills" because in a choice between retaining 4 damage to adjacent foes, push a foe 1 square, and knock a foe prone, I'm fairly certain I'm keeping "knock a foe prone" because its more universally useful.
2.) Humans get a bonus at-will as a racial feature (as Joe and Bob show us). So a human starts with four encounter powers. Sweet. We're keeping that right?
3.) Because if you do, you have to fix some of the other races. Half-elves get an at-will from another class as an encounter power. Do they still? Is it sill an encounter power? If so, they're nearly as awesome as humans (depending on stat of other-class power). Or is it a daily now?
4.) More importantly, dragonborn's dragonbreath is only 1d6+con starting, and is clearly inferior to nearly any of our super-at wills (making humans a much better choice, or half-elves if we keep dilettante an encounter power). My suggestion, of course, is to boost dragonbreath to 2d6+con starting, and raise it +1d6 over the character's life as normal. There are some other races like this as well (firesoul genasi and probably more in the MM) that would need dice bumping.
5.) Does our ban on "at-will" magic apply to class features (like paladin's divine challenge or a wizard's cantrips?) as well? If so, kiss the paladin class goodbye.
6.) Similarly, certain utility powers (like the Rogue 2 powers Fleeting Ghost or Great Leap) is at-will. Encounter?
7.) Oh yeah, mult-classing feats?
The big thing this system does is encourage you to open with all 3(4?) of your encounter powers for the most damage, the clean up with basic attacks. The effect is moot. Every time you begin a fight, you want to launch your 2 dice attacks first, then resort to your 1 dice basics. This has the effect of watching your party go nova for 3+ rounds, then resorting to chipping away at weakened, bloody foes. Then rest 5 minutes and do it again.
This, of course, will get worse when your PCs hit paragon and have eight or more encounter powers to burn through, then resort to chipping. It will get better in epic though; those 2 dice super-at-wills will be useless damage (equal now to their basics, which go up to 2 dice at 21st) and probably only recalled when their secondary effects are useful (like slow or extra damage to adjacent foe).
If you DON'T double at will dice, your making the fight even LONGER. The wizard is expected to be doing 1d6+int damage min every round (barring misses and excluding magic missile). If he does it three times and resorts to his inferior crossbow, the fight lasts longer because his to-hit is lower (more chance of missing) and his damage is lower (much lower in some cases).
Neither promote tactical use of encounter powers: go nova and get it over-with.
If you think you can live with the repercussions, go for it man. I just think as soon as this see's field-testing with live PCs, all bets go off and you'll see a lot of "three rounds of encounters, now lets slowly chip away with basics" fights.
Obviously I disagree. There is another way to mollify my interested in regards to at-will powers. Namely to make them equal to basic attacks instead of better than.
If you have a selection of 3 options (A, B and C), but 2 are clearly better than the first, you essentially have 2 options.
If all three are roughly equal, but have varying effects so as to make them more useful in varied situations, THAT would have been more interesting.
As it stands option A (basic attack) is ignored 98% of the time. So it really don't exist as an option.
For example: your at will power might not include your stat bonus to hit, but still cause the target to be dazed for one round (or what have you). This should cause the basic attacks to be useful a significant portion of the time, which would make the game more interesting [to me].
Quote:
Its not about how interesting the individual powers are, viewed in a vacuum. Its about how interesting the character as a whole is, viewed in total. Having things that you can do whenever you like makes your character, overall, more interesting. Reaping Strike might not be as awesome as an at will power in comparison to how awesome it would be if we enhanced it and made it an encounter power, but so what?
Doing the same thing all of the time is still doing the same thing all of the time, be it basic attack or an at will power. Viewing the powers in or out of a vacuum makes no difference to that fact. Using reaping strike every round is no more interesting in the long run than using basic attack every round. Repetition of ANY power is no more cool long term than repetition of basic attack (or full attack in 3.x).
A Chinese friend of mine eats Chinese food all of the time. He doesn't get the same pleasure from it that I get, because I only have Chinese food occasionally. The same concept applies to D&D, whether you think my reasoning is flawed or not.
Quote:
Right now my human fighter has a suite of three at will attacks. Each individual power might be cooler as an encounter power, but my fighter is cooler as a guy who can choose between three different tactical effects at any given time than he would be if he couldn't. And its more important that my character be cool than that his attack powers be cool viewed in a vacuum and unconnected to him.
I find being able to do a few spectacular things to be cooler than to do many not-so-spectacular things. Our likes appear to differ on that point, and I doubt we'd be able to change the other's view point.
Obviously I disagree. There is another way to mollify my interested in regards to at-will powers. Namely to make them equal to basic attacks instead of better than.
If you have a selection of 3 options (A, B and C), but 2 are clearly better than the first, you essentially have 2 options.
If all three are roughly equal, but have varying effects so as to make them more useful in varied situations, THAT would have been more interesting.
As it stands option A (basic attack) is ignored 98% of the time. So it really don't exist as an option.
For example: your at will power might not include your stat bonus to hit, but still cause the target to be dazed for one round (or what have you). This should cause the basic attacks to be useful a significant portion of the time, which would make the game more interesting [to me].
See, the flaw to that is assuming A, B, & C are supposed to be equal. They clearly are not. B & C are supposed to be better and A is supposed to be an option of last resort. Basic Attacks are supposed to be used if you are prevented from using an at-will or better (such as OAs, charging, dominated attacks, warlord "free" attacks) as a sub-par but better-than-nothing attack.
So sure, you could try to make A, B, & C equal, but that means dragging B & C down to A's level or raising it to D (encounter) level. Both are massive undertakings that affect far-more than the obvious elements (check out my post above and the other on page 6 for just a few things that would need to change to remove at-wills).
Again, more power to you if that is what you want.
Cadfan, you see, when you say this I am thinking the exact opposite of what you intend. 4e at-will powers are in a vacuum and balanced within that vacuum. How do wizards with powers to blast endlessly affect the game world? I don't think that that was figured into their "balance".
BALANCE may be considered in a vacuum. "Interesting-ness" is not.
If you succeed in making Reaping Strike more interesting, but in the process make an entire character taken as a whole less interesting, have you succeeded? Maybe you've succeeded at something, but if the problem you intended to remedy was how interesting the game was, you haven't succeeded at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zustiur
Doing the same thing all of the time is still doing the same thing all of the time, be it basic attack or an at will power. Viewing the powers in or out of a vacuum makes no difference to that fact. Using reaping strike every round is no more interesting in the long run than using basic attack every round. Repetition of ANY power is no more cool long term than repetition of basic attack (or full attack in 3.x).
This is really something you should understand before you undertake game design.
Asking whether an individual power is more or less interesting post-change is the wrong approach. Instead, ask whether a character with a particular suite of powers is more interesting than whatever you're giving him instead.
Right now, my fighter has the following offensive choices:
3 things he can do every round, each a little better in a different circumstance.
3 things he can do once each every fight
3 things he can do once per day.
You seem to want to change it to:
1 completely vanilla thing he can do every round
5 things he can do once each every fight
3 things he can do once per day.
You need to compare the whole, not the individual level of interest you find in the at wills you change to encounter! Its entirely possible to make the two items that went from the first slot to the second more interesting after the move, but to find the character as a whole less interesting, because that first slot there, the "every round" slot, the one slot you use more than any other, now has only one choice in it, and the choice is totally vanilla.
Maybe you'll come up with the same conclusion after you think about it from the right perspective. You seem... pretty determined, so you probably will. But at least you'll get there a way that makes sense.
You wouldn't pick your clothes by isolating each article of clothing and determining whether it interested you, and then combining them afterwards and being surprised by whether they matched. You wouldn't cook food by selecting the ten most interesting ingredients you could and combining them, and then being surprised by the taste. You would consider each of these items in light of the others, because they come together to create a complex aesthetic whole. There's an end-goal here, and it isn't to make Reaping Strike more interesting. If that was the goal we'd just make it a level 29 daily and be done. The goal is to make the Fighter more interesting.
Right now, my fighter has the following offensive choices:
3 things he can do every round, each a little better in a different circumstance.
3 things he can do once each every fight
3 things he can do once per day.
You seem to want to change it to:
1 completely vanilla thing he can do every round
5 things he can do once each every fight
3 things he can do once per day.
One thing you left out of the equation that is also important:
1 completely vanilla thing he can do every round ... that every other class is also doing.
Part of at-wills is that it helps make classes seem different. Once the fight reaches basic attack only mode every class suddenly plays exactly the same, the only differences being stats. The only thing really defined by class is weapon proficiencies, but that is one feat away from not mattering.
VERY few classes rely on a single at-will exclusively. There is the ranger, which basically twin strikes unless they need to get away. That however has to do with lack of compelling options for the ranger's at-wills more than anything else. However, even in the current system, there are quite a few uses for basic attacks:
1 - Charging. Extremely important during the surprise round, and when you are getting up from prone. With many STR based characters focussing on melee combat, it's basically a ranged attack which they would otherwise lack.
2 - Heavy thrown. Similar to the above, in situations where a STR based character needs to attack from ranged, such as against flying foes, they will rarely have an at-will power that can give them the distance they need, so a javelin or throwing hammer, etc is needed.
3 - Opportunity attacks, and with them stuff like the fighter's interupt, and the swordmage's reaction. This is a situation where characters that don't focus on STR end up being "ignorable" as threats in terms of OAs.
4 - Warlords, more than any other class, provide basic attacks (although there are some magic items, etc, that provide free basic attacks). It is, in part, because of this that there are many spellcasting classes that have at-wills which are usable as basic attacks, so that those classes can benefit from a warlord as well. Still, there are situations where classes are rewarded for their STR. One great example is the rogue, as the warlord can often give a strong rogue extra chances to hit his sneak attack damage in the event he missed earlier. Heck one of their at-wills is another PCs basic attack with a bonus.
Now basic attacks aren't going to be what people go to as their first choice, but it will come up in play. And the characters that choose to completely ignore their basic attacks (specifically str) will end up being completely non-threatening in terms of OAs, and enemies will probably treat them accordingly as far as walking past them, etc.
Ok Sadrik, instead of bickering about the feel of this change, lets see what the "math" says.
Absolutely. Break it before the players do. Surprise me now before they surprise me later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
I guess that solves the "combat-speed" problem too.
Some very excellent analysis. Thanks!
Yes, with the assumption that those two characters hit every time they blast through the 5 kobolds. Add two more characters and the 50% to hit assumption and you get to where you want to be. Four characters killing 5 kobolds quickly. This is an awesome realization, perhaps fiddling with the HP and other things to lessen the grind is not necessary when implementing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
1.) Are all encounter powers equal? At 13th level, you must swap out an encounter power to gain a 13th level power. Do I get to swap out one of my "super at-wills" because in a choice between retaining 4 damage to adjacent foes, push a foe 1 square, and knock a foe prone, I'm fairly certain I'm keeping "knock a foe prone" because its more universally useful.
I would say you can swap out which ever encounter powers you want. I would also so that you can select any encounter powers you want too. So you are not limited to taking former at-will powers as encounter powers in your two at-will slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
2.) Humans get a bonus at-will as a racial feature (as Joe and Bob show us). So a human starts with four encounter powers. Sweet. We're keeping that right?
As of right now I am inclined to simply make it a bonus encounter power from your class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
3.) Because if you do, you have to fix some of the other races. Half-elves get an at-will from another class as an encounter power. Do they still? Is it sill an encounter power? If so, they're nearly as awesome as humans (depending on stat of other-class power). Or is it a daily now?
Give them the bonus encounter power from another class. Half-elves kind of suck anyway so giving them an encounter instead of encounter as a daily will boost 'em up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
4.) More importantly, dragonborn's dragonbreath is only 1d6+con starting, and is clearly inferior to nearly any of our super-at wills (making humans a much better choice, or half-elves if we keep dilettante an encounter power). My suggestion, of course, is to boost dragonbreath to 2d6+con starting, and raise it +1d6 over the character's life as normal. There are some other races like this as well (firesoul genasi and probably more in the MM) that would need dice bumping.
This is fair, 2d6 for the dragon breath
Lets see going through the races:
Dragonborn - breath weapon (boosted to 2d6)
Dwarf - wtf???
Eladrin - fey step (still balanced)
Elf - re-roll attack (still balanced)
Half-elf - encounter from another class
Halfling - force enemy to re-roll attack (still balanced)
Human - encounter power from own class
Tiefling - hit me I hit you back better (boosted to +2 to hit and charisma to damage)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
5.) Does our ban on "at-will" magic apply to class features (like paladin's divine challenge or a wizard's cantrips?) as well? If so, kiss the paladin class goodbye.
Hell no. I mentioned this several times through the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
6.) Similarly, certain utility powers (like the Rogue 2 powers Fleeting Ghost or Great Leap) is at-will. Encounter?
I am fretting over these a bit but by my rule they would be encounter powers. There are 5 in the PHB, perhaps these 5 powers can become encounter powers without too much detriment. I have never actually seen them in play so I don't know. Here they are for reference:
Great Leap level 2
Effect: Make a high jump or a long jump. Determine the DC
of the Athletics check as though you had a running start.
The distance you jump can exceed your speed.
Fleeting Ghost level 2
Effect: You can move your speed and make a Stealth check.
You do not take the normal penalty from movement on
this check.
Chameleon level 6
Effect: Make a Stealth check. Until the end of your next
turn, you remain hidden if a creature that has a clear line
of sight to you does not beat your check result with its Perception
check. If at the end of your turn you do not have
cover or concealment against a creature, that creature
automatically notices you.
Nimble Climb level 6
Effect: Make an Athletics check to climb a surface. You can
move at your full speed during this climb.
Shadow Stride level 10
Effect: You must be hiding to use this power. You can move
your speed. At the end of that movement, if you have
cover, you can make a Stealth check with no penalty for
moving. If you make the Stealth check, you stay hidden
during your movement.
They could possibly be changed to feats, they seem very feat like to me anyway. In fact Nimble Climb is duplicated as a feat called Sure Climber. It appears that these at-will were just thrown into the rogues list because they have so many to choose from anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
7.) Oh yeah, multi-classing feats?
It looks like their are only two that need to be worried about - Arcane Initiate and Pact Initiate. If the Warlock retains the class feature to shoot 1d10 EBs at-will then the pact initiate is not a problem. If that is not the case then the feat could give them a pact boon over their choice.
The wizard one would need changing. Perhaps give them the cantrips as encounter powers instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
The big thing this system does is encourage you to open with all 3(4?) of your encounter powers for the most damage, the clean up with basic attacks. The effect is moot. Every time you begin a fight, you want to launch your 2 dice attacks first, then resort to your 1 dice basics. This has the effect of watching your party go nova for 3+ rounds, then resorting to chipping away at weakened, bloody foes. Then rest 5 minutes and do it again.
It really seems no different that the standard rules, except that they can nova for +2 rounds than their level would indicate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
This, of course, will get worse when your PCs hit paragon and have eight or more encounter powers to burn through, then resort to chipping. It will get better in epic though; those 2 dice super-at-wills will be useless damage (equal now to their basics, which go up to 2 dice at 21st) and probably only recalled when their secondary effects are useful (like slow or extra damage to adjacent foe).
Agreed. By that level they will likely fire off their big guns first and then switch down to their weaker effects when needed. And this seems fine to me. Every power should not be as useful by that level. In 3e it would be equivalent of low level spells not packing the same punch as the upper level ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
If you DON'T double at will dice, your making the fight even LONGER. The wizard is expected to be doing 1d6+int damage min every round (barring misses and excluding magic missile). If he does it three times and resorts to his inferior crossbow, the fight lasts longer because his to-hit is lower (more chance of missing) and his damage is lower (much lower in some cases).
I don't feel that the wizard should be expected to do 1d6+INT every round. If you expected your character to do that much or more you can easily fix that. Take a couple of feats that buff up your character, such as weapon training and weapon focus and get a decent magic weapon. You can contribute with the right character in the form of your basic attacks. I just feel like it should not be necessary for a wizard to contribute with basic attacks.
[quote=Remathilis;4689157]Neither promote tactical use of encounter powers: go nova and get it over-with.
Tactical uses of powers are still there. I don't understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
If you think you can live with the repercussions, go for it man. I just think as soon as this see's field-testing with live PCs, all bets go off and you'll see a lot of "three rounds of encounters, now lets slowly chip away with basics" fights.
Yup, this sounds more like previous editions to me. Instead of we'll chip 'em down in a very linear and programmed way. Technically we still do that but it is quicker and flashier and by my estimation more fun.
See, the flaw to that is assuming A, B, & C are supposed to be equal. They clearly are not. B & C are supposed to be better and A is supposed to be an option of last resort. Basic Attacks are supposed to be used if you are prevented from using an at-will or better (such as OAs, charging, dominated attacks, warlord "free" attacks) as a sub-par but better-than-nothing attack.
Most characters have two at-wills and they are pretty weak, one of them is clearly superior and is your default attack and the other is more a if the other one is not working right the use this one. So again having two weak at-will attacks of which one is often secondary you are just adding unnecessary tedium to the game for what exactly? Just go with the basic attacks and give your characters more options than just "spamming" your best at-will. Not to mention the archetypes that are opened up.
Asking whether an individual power is more or less interesting post-change is the wrong approach. Instead, ask whether a character with a particular suite of powers is more interesting than whatever you're giving him instead.
Point taken. I have however considered the whole ball of wax so to speak. What you have below is good solid analysis. I think a round by round comparison would even be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
You seem to want to change it to:
1 completely vanilla thing he can do every round
5 things he can do once each every fight
3 things he can do once per day.
Yep, versus your guy who can do more slightly different vanilla at-will attacks and less things once per fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
You need to compare the whole, not the individual level of interest you find in the at wills you change to encounter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Its entirely possible to make the two items that went from the first slot to the second more interesting after the move, but to find the character as a whole less interesting, because that first slot there, the "every round" slot, the one slot you use more than any other, now has only one choice in it, and the choice is totally vanilla.
The every round slot should be as quick and vanilla as possible and eat up as little game time as possible. It is more interesting to have outright booms than to take 'em out from a million nicks with little time eating mini-bennies attached to them.
Now basic attacks aren't going to be what people go to as their first choice, but it will come up in play. And the characters that choose to completely ignore their basic attacks (specifically str) will end up being completely non-threatening in terms of OAs, and enemies will probably treat them accordingly as far as walking past them, etc.
I fail to see this logic. The game will have more people focusing on basic attacks which will in turn make their OAs, charges and throwing heavy weapons better.
Most characters have two at-wills and they are pretty weak, one of them is clearly superior and is your default attack and the other is more a if the other one is not working right the use this one.
This is NOT the case with the typical character.
From our group:
Fighter: Cleave, Crushing Surge, Footwork Lure. Helps with groups, durability, and mobility.
Rogue: Piercing Strike, Riposte Strike, Deft Strike. Helps with accuracy, defense, and mobility.
Cleric: Lance of Faith, Radiant Strike. Helps with accuracy, and healing.
Wizard: Scorching Burst, Cloud of Daggers, Ray of Frost. Helps with groups, single foes, and action denial.
Ranger: Twin Strike, Hit and Run. Helps with damage, and mobility.
The only one you might have a case with is the paladin. She's got both charisma at wills, one of which gives temporary hit points, and the other which penalizes enemy attacks. Both of these help with durability.
If you want to implement this in your game here is what I have so far. Is there anything that I am forgetting? Perhaps others can speak to the newer classes and feats from further supplements.
Powers At-Will Powers
Characters select three encounter powers at 1st level. All class level 1 at-will powers become encounter powers with their 21st level damage.
Races Dragonborn
Increase the Dragon Breath encounter power to 2d6 damage.
Half-Elf
Dilettante racial feature allows you to select an encounter power from another class and use it as an encounter power.
Human
Bonus at will power racial feature allows you to select a bonus encounter power from your classes encounter powers.
Tiefling
Increase the bonus to the attack roll for the infernal wrath power to +2
Classes Ranger
The twin strike at-will power is deleted.
Warlock
The eldritch blast at-will power does not convert to an encounter power. The warlock retains it as a class feature as is. The pacts must select the encounter power (former at-will power) listed.
Feats Heavy Blade Opportunity
You can use an encounter power with this feat.
Arcane Initiate
You can use each wizard cantrip as an encounter power.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
