4e / GSL At-will class powers ruining my archetypes

[Felon]

Originally Posted by ardoughter

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.

I have some long-running experience with the warlock. The Eldritch Blast as it currently stands is a bit of a shaft, since its damage it just gives the warlock the equivalent of a basic attack--in other words, it just gives the warlock what the ranger takes completely for granted and never uses.

I think in the system proposed, it makes sense to allow the warlock to simply keep this as a basic attack.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Felon

I have some long-running experience with the warlock. The Eldritch Blast as it currently stands is a bit of a shaft, since its damage it just gives the warlock the equivalent of a basic attack--in other words, it just gives the warlock what the ranger takes completely for granted and never uses.

I think in the system proposed, it makes sense to allow the warlock to simply keep this as a basic attack.

Warlock
The Eldritch Blast class feature is an encounter power that deals 1d10 + Charisma damage and can be used two times during an encounter and three times at 16th level.

How does this look? That way it is not an auto no-brainer. They may have to rely on a weapon in an extended combat. Basically it is a "reserve feat" for the Eldritch Blast power.

Btw I stuck the rules for this 4e change down at the bottom of page 8. I think I will duplicate them here also for easier reading.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

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 class feature is an encounter power that deals 1d10 + Charisma damage and can be used two times during an encounter and three times at 16th level.

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.

[Zustiur]

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.

Originally Posted by WalterKovacs

1 completely vanilla thing he can do every round ... that every other class is also doing.

That is exactly what I want. I want all classes to share enough of their abilities in combat that I can believe they're non-magical humanoids at heart. I don't want 'flashy' super-beings who can cast magic all day, or shoot two arrows every 6 seconds, or hit enemies over the head to make them glow with holy guiding light (that only benefits one companion) every round.
I want bless instead of priest's shield. I want bane instead of righteous brand.
I want firing two arrows in one round to be special, not something that is considered normal.
I want wizards to have their limits like they've always had in every edition of D&D going back to the beginning.

Doing something every round is a feat or a class feature, or a basic ability that everyone can do. Not a class specific power or spell.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

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.

And above all I want this. If you're doing something you can do every round, I don't want it to take more time to figure out than "I hit/miss, I deal damage". None of the "Fred gets a +2 against this specific creature, in this unlikely circumstance, and it only lasts for a round so I'll have to repeat myself if I do exactly the same thing next round".

Effects that alter circumstances (like +2 to hit) should last for more than one round. Preferably for the whole encounter once initiated. In other words, I don't want to be making notes every round and crossing them out every round. Just like I don't want to alter my Str or Dex and have to recalculate my character every round in 3E.

[GMforPowergamers]

Originally Posted by Felon

I have some long-running experience with the warlock. The Eldritch Blast as it currently stands is a bit of a shaft, since its damage it just gives the warlock the equivalent of a basic attack--in other words, it just gives the warlock what the ranger takes completely for granted and never uses.

I think in the system proposed, it makes sense to allow the warlock to simply keep this as a basic attack.

Isn't Magic missle the same for wizards...just the basic ranged attacks???

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Agreed, but those should be special attacks not your basic attack.

Why should members of a class not learn special ways to fight so that even their basic attacks are based on their strengths rather than on their weakest traits? You are punishing/nerfing a lot of classes for no reason.

[WalterKovacs]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

That is exactly what I want. I want all classes to share enough of their abilities in combat that I can believe they're non-magical humanoids at heart. I don't want 'flashy' super-beings who can cast magic all day, or shoot two arrows every 6 seconds, or hit enemies over the head to make them glow with holy guiding light (that only benefits one companion) every round.
I want bless instead of priest's shield. I want bane instead of righteous brand.
I want firing two arrows in one round to be special, not something that is considered normal.
I want wizards to have their limits like they've always had in every edition of D&D going back to the beginning.

However, they are going to be doing a lot of things that are different each time. Instead of doing the same "little" thing every round, they are using a completely different encounter power every oher turn.

And the "limits" of wizards only really existed at lower levels. Once a wizard hit a certain point, it was off to the races. This is sort of what is being proposed hear. Give the wizard a limit BUT make the fights short enough that the limit never comes up, or comes up rarely.

Doing something every round is a feat or a class feature, or a basic ability that everyone can do. Not a class specific power or spell.

Ignoring the previous editions warlock ... the ranger got their feat for free ... as a class feature. Rapid Shot/Two Weapon Fighting is basically a melee power. Since there are NO "powers" in 3.5 for martial types (until book of nine swords) there aren't going to be many cases of this. One example: Is the monks flurry of blows a class feature or a class specific power? It is class specific. It is an attack. However it would probably qualify as being a class feature. Either way though, it was something they could constantly do, that only they could do. It was part of what made them monks.

Part of what made rangers what they were was their fighting style that either involved two weapon fighting ... which gave them extra attacks ... or archery powers ... that gave them extra attacks. Kind of like twin strike.

Magic users may not have had unlimited attacks ... they did however invest in magic items (and later reserve feats) that could make them effectively have unlimited magic. Or, more often, they would force the entire party to rest whenever they ran out. Since it was daily based, instead of encounter based, it is a lot easier to do this. If you run out of powers IN an encounter, you can't just "give up and rest". However, if you are running low on dailies, you can stop before the next encounter.

So, while in the past magic users had limits ... in many cases players would just find ways of circumventing that. Part of that involves skipping the first few levels (not just for this reason, but also things like the sweet spot, HP ammounts, access to magic items, etc). Part of it involves loading up on "cure sticks" and other useful wands to give more resources over time. As time went on, magic items started to convert from charges to uses per day, and feats were added to give at-will options for magic users (reserve feats).

And above all I want this. If you're doing something you can do every round, I don't want it to take more time to figure out than "I hit/miss, I deal damage". None of the "Fred gets a +2 against this specific creature, in this unlikely circumstance, and it only lasts for a round so I'll have to repeat myself if I do exactly the same thing next round".

Because if you are doing the same thing constantly its going to remain difficult to keep track of? How is having more encounter powers, which each do something different, and unlike daily powers rarely have long term durations that much different. The ability you use once per fight (and is 1 of at least 3, up to 6 or 7, not counting utilities or dailies, etc) is going to be easier to remember all the details than something you use multiple times during a fight.

Ignore that a number of at-wills are fire and forget as well, like twin strike, eldritch blast, magic missle, heck even some stuff like thunderwave, tide of iron, and things like that are also fire and forget. Giving people THP? Again, you right it on the sheet and voila, you just do a bit of extra damage. Give someone an immediate attack, move someone around, attack multiple targets, attack a non-AC defence, move before or after the attack, etc, etc, etc ...

Only a few involve round long effects you have to remember, and which are comparable to a number of round long effects that are class features, like the fighter's mark, or the warlock's concealment, that provide the same kind of numbers you need to track. [Unlike mod'ing STR or DEX, you don't have to recalculate one value that in turn recalculates a LOT of values ... you are told directly what 'final' value is modified instead]. If you use the power often enough, and you know what the "special condition" is, you can easily know when it isn't going to matter.

I'm not going to say there isn't a case of "remember your modifiers" at the table during the sessions ... but continuous modifiers and feat based modifiers are just as easy to forget about.

Ultimately, it would seem that if an at-will is being used say ... 3 times per fight, it's going to be easier to remember the math involved [including your encounters and dailies] than having no at-wills and more encounters. You have less to calculate for your basic attacks (except of course, their initial math is probably different than your class based abilities, and if you have powers with longer durations as you've suggested, you have to apply that math to these powers anyway). And, since you are never using the same "complex" power twice, you have to get used to more powers that recur less often.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I think this reasoning is very flawed.

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?

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.

The problem is that at-will powers are superior to every other option that is not also an at-will power, or an encounter or daily. Hence, basic attacks do not happen. Special combat options, those that still exist in 4e, are not going to happen. Instead, the at-will power is going to be spammed, over and over and over, occasionally puncuated by a not very exciting slightly more powerful encounter or daily.

4e does two things I just cannot live with. First, it reduces the variety of combat. Despite what some claim, I have never found my 3.5 combats to be full attack slogs. There are options, so even if you ended up just attacking, you at least had the option of weighing other options. Second, it removes the basic imagery of a character engaging in swordplay or whatever. Instead, combat is a montage of special moves. If an at-will has a specific effect, then every attack you make is flavored somewhat by that effect. Whereas with a basic attack, you are free to picture it as overpowering, deft, clever, lucky, whatever. But 4e powers kind of tell you what to picture.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The problem is that at-will powers are superior to every other option that is not also an at-will power, or an encounter or daily. Hence, basic attacks do not happen. Special combat options, those that still exist in 4e, are not going to happen. Instead, the at-will power is going to be spammed, over and over and over, occasionally puncuated by a not very exciting slightly more powerful encounter or daily.

4e does two things I just cannot live with. First, it reduces the variety of combat. Despite what some claim, I have never found my 3.5 combats to be full attack slogs. There are options, so even if you ended up just attacking, you at least had the option of weighing other options. Second, it removes the basic imagery of a character engaging in swordplay or whatever. Instead, combat is a montage of special moves. If an at-will has a specific effect, then every attack you make is flavored somewhat by that effect. Whereas with a basic attack, you are free to picture it as overpowering, deft, clever, lucky, whatever. But 4e powers kind of tell you what to picture.

I still don't get how having two attack options with different effects mean less variety than having one attack options with no effect but dealing damage. THINK ABOUT IT!

Forget Basic Attacks. They don't exist. Name them "Reaction Attacks", triggered by powers, opportunity attacks and class features.

For a Fighter, At-Will powers can be like being able to make an (Improved) Bull Rush or use Power Attack every round, to translate these into 3E terms.

And you can still flavor your at-will attacks however you want, the ules even say so. Reaping Strike, Sure Strike, Tide of Iron, or whatever else you have as your at-will power can be described in countless ways!

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

I still don't get how having two attack options with different effects mean less variety than having one attack options with no effect but dealing damage. THINK ABOUT IT!

I see this, you see this, but they do not. I understand where they are coming from. They see at-will powers as all being "special". And for something to be special, it can only be done some of the time.

When you label basic attacks "normal", then there has to be a reason to use them more often than your other attacks. Which there isn't. It is one of the first things I teach new people who are playing the game. Basic attacks aren't done. Forget you have them. Except on a charge, opportunity attack or attack granted by a Warlord, you'll never use it.

I know I don't have a problem with that. To me, at-will attacks are the absolutely most basic thing a class can do. Anyone who knows how the fight in the slightest is using attacks like Cleave or Reaping Strike rather than swinging wildly(basic attack). Just like anyone who knew how to fight in 3e was using Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Cleave, Great Cleave, Two Weapon Fighting, Trip, Grapple, and the Full Attack action rather than doing a standard attack. I viewed these all as the at-will powers of 3e.

In that same way, I view at-will powers for wizards as the absolutely most basic magic you learn when you study to become a wizard. It requires almost no energy to channel a Magic Missile. And it didn't require any real energy for my Wizard in 3e to do it either. He prepared 6 of them on an average day. He could Magic Missile every round he was not casting a higher level spell for the whole day. The only time he'd run out is when there were more than 4 fights in a day. Which happened...well, never. Even then, he could use Fiery Burst(the reserve feat) every round, forever. It did more damage than Magic Missile anyways.

I used a bow when I was level 1 and 2. By the time I was level 3, I pretty much never touched one again. I'm just happy to skip the bow phase.

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Forget Basic Attacks. They don't exist. Name them "Reaction Attacks", triggered by powers, opportunity attacks and class features.

Yeah, I think this is the key point. Nearly every option listed in the Combat section of the PHB is to be used only in special circumstances. Normally, you use your at-will powers, because they are the bread and butter of your class. They are what define you as a Fighter and not just some guy with a sword.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Forget Basic Attacks. They don't exist. Name them "Reaction Attacks", triggered by powers, opportunity attacks and class features.

I tried this line of reasoning earlier and it didn't work. I'm still not sure why... it's so reasonable.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Mallus

I tried this line of reasoning earlier and it didn't work. I'm still not sure why... it's so reasonable.

I think I only get it with pawsplay last post.

Whereas with a basic attack, you are free to picture it as overpowering, deft, clever, lucky, whatever. But 4e powers kind of tell you what to picture.

The point is - that's exactly what you can do with your basic attacks. They have a name and a flavor text, but that doesn't mean they can be narrated only in one specific way. They are your bread & butter. You can have a deft, overpowering, clever or lucky TIde of Iron attack.

You can even have a deft, overpowering, clever or lucky Magic Missile (at least no less then you can have a deft, overpowering, clever or lucky Crossbow Attack).

[Mallus]

Sadrik, here are a few more --hopefully-- constructive design considerations for you to consider...

• Converting at-wills to encounter powers will have a significant effect on game balance. Basically, it trashes the 4e encounter budget, so encounter design is going to be more time consuming.

• PC's won't be able to generate special attack/damage types --radiant, area-of-effect, burst-- as frequently.

• This makes certain monster types more powerful cf. all undead, swarms. For example, without radiant-producing at-wills undead become tougher, and some undead, like ones that regenerate unless they're hit with radiant damage during the round, become a lot tougher.

• This will make combats longer. Even if you increase the number and power on encounter powers, thanks to overall increase in monster HP in 4e.

• Remember that combats in 4e are designed to last more rounds than their 3e counterparts. Which means the majority of PC attacks are meant to be at-wills. Reducing the number of times they can be used, even if you increase their power, is inviting the dreaded grind.

• Some kind of recharge mechanism, a la Bo9S, is practically a requirement.

• But then you're going to have to balance issues with the existing encounter powers which weren't designed with unlimited recharge mechanics in mind.

• Which all leads back to encounter design now being considerable harder.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The problem is that at-will powers are superior to every other option that is not also an at-will power, or an encounter or daily. Hence, basic attacks do not happen. Special combat options, those that still exist in 4e, are not going to happen. Instead, the at-will power is going to be spammed, over and over and over, occasionally puncuated by a not very exciting slightly more powerful encounter or daily.

4e does two things I just cannot live with. First, it reduces the variety of combat. Despite what some claim, I have never found my 3.5 combats to be full attack slogs. There are options, so even if you ended up just attacking, you at least had the option of weighing other options. Second, it removes the basic imagery of a character engaging in swordplay or whatever. Instead, combat is a montage of special moves. If an at-will has a specific effect, then every attack you make is flavored somewhat by that effect. Whereas with a basic attack, you are free to picture it as overpowering, deft, clever, lucky, whatever. But 4e powers kind of tell you what to picture.

Brilliantly and eloquently put.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

For a Fighter, At-Will powers can be like being able to make an (Improved) Bull Rush or use Power Attack every round, to translate these into 3E terms.

Pick two and that's all you can ever do. Nope, that is crap.

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

And you can still flavor your at-will attacks however you want, the ules even say so. Reaping Strike, Sure Strike, Tide of Iron, or whatever else you have as your at-will power can be described in countless ways!

Again mostly martial powers are easily defined. Try doing it that easily with lazer beams and quotes like this:

from PHB:
"You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your
weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack
doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to
match your ferocity."

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

You can even have a deft, overpowering, clever or lucky Magic Missile (at least no less then you can have a deft, overpowering, clever or lucky Crossbow Attack).

And you can as an encounter power.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Pick two and that's all you can ever do. Nope, that is crap.

Again mostly martial powers are easily defined. Try doing it that easily with lazer beams and quotes like this:

Think of all the interesting ways you can describe the wizard shooting a crossbow.

Now apply that flavor text to Sacred Flame or Magic Missile. (Hint: If you can't find so many interesting ways to describe someone shooting a crossbow bolt, think about how much flavor you add to your Wizard if you exchange Magic Missile with basic Crossbow Attacks.)

from PHB:
"You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your
weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack
doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to
match your ferocity."

This flavor text alone consists of several options on how to narrate the power. And that doesn't even include the rule that the flavor text is no rule!

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Mallus

• Converting at-wills to encounter powers will have a significant effect on game balance. Basically, it trashes the 4e encounter budget, so encounter design is going to be more time consuming.

Please explain this budget because I have no idea what this has to do with at-wills.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• PC's won't be able to generate special attack/damage types --radiant, area-of-effect, burst-- as frequently.

Um, this is bad?

Originally Posted by Mallus

• This makes certain monster types more powerful cf. all undead, swarms. For example, without radiant-producing at-wills undead become tougher, and some undead, like ones that regenerate unless they're hit with radiant damage during the round, become a lot tougher.

Um, this is a non-issue. Even without this change, if there was not a cleric in the party you are saying they would be dead in the water? That is just silly.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• This will make combats longer. Even if you increase the number and power on encounter powers, thanks to overall increase in monster HP in 4e.

I think by the math on the previous page or two this was illustrated to be not the case. It in fact blatantly had the opposite effect and sped up combat.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• Remember that combats in 4e are designed to last more rounds than their 3e counterparts. Which means the majority of PC attacks are meant to be at-wills. Reducing the number of times they can be used, even if you increase their power, is inviting the dreaded grind.

More rounds does not equate to at-wills. That is drawing a false conclusion. And then further by the math it averts grind.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• Some kind of recharge mechanism, a la Bo9S, is practically a requirement.

The wizard needs a boost and this is a very valid one. Lowering the tier requirement for arcane mastery feat is a good fix to them.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• But then you're going to have to balance issues with the existing encounter powers which weren't designed with unlimited recharge mechanics in mind.

Um again not a necessary change.

Originally Posted by Mallus

• Which all leads back to encounter design now being considerable harder.

Luckily the game is run by a DM and not a hack of a computer program. If you are suggesting that the DM should not tailor encounters to the PCs, that is just wrong headed thinking. Even encounters from modules have to be tweaked some for the party. I see this as a non-issue.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Please explain this budget because I have no idea what this has to do with at-wills.

Really? Ok... your changes are going to make PC parties weaker overall, so the DM won't be able to use encounter guidelines with regard to monsters as written.

Um, this is bad?

Yes. Well, it's bad if you want to rely on the official encounter guidelines and it's going to make combat slower.

Um, this is a non-issue. Even without this change, if there was not a cleric in the party you are saying they would be dead in the water?

I said it would make certain opponents tougher. Under standard 4e rules, a party without a cleric or paladin is going to have a harder time versus undead. Do you disagree?

I think by the math on the previous page or two this was illustrated to be not the case. It in fact blatantly had the opposite effect and sped up combat.

That math doesn't prove what you think it proves (hint: it was a single test scenario pitting 1st level PC's vs. a single monster type). It wasn't a broad enough analysis (nowhere near), just a test case.

More rounds does not equate to at-wills. That is drawing a false conclusion.

They longer a combat goes on, the more at-will attacks get used, because PC's have a low, fixed number --max: 2-- of encounter powers. Unless, of course, the PC decided to do nothing in the combat round.

If you are suggesting that the DM should not tailor encounters to the PCs, that is just wrong headed thinking.

Did I write that? Nope. I said your changes will make tailoring/balancing encounters harder, because the DM won't be able to rely on the existing guidelines. This part's pretty irrefutable.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Please explain this budget because I have no idea what this has to do with at-wills.

The idea is to control pacing of an encounter. In an average 6 round combat at first level, you are expected to spend 5 of those rounds using at-will attacks at 1st level. If you allow a character more encounter powers, then they are more powerful than expected. If you force them to use Basic Attacks for those 5 rounds than they are less powerful than expected.

Consider a round where a Wizard uses a Flame Burst(or whatever it's called) and hits 3 enemies for 7 damage. He is doing 21 damage total. If he instead attacks with a Longbow, he might hit for 1d10+3, for a max of 13 damage(average around 8). It's dramatically lower.

If, you allow Flame Burst to do 2d6+int instead, you've increased the damage to 33 damage on average to those 3 creatures. Which, as you've mentioned, actually speeds up combat. Which may not be a good thing. If monsters die quicker, they don't have as many actions per combat. If they have less actions per combat, they have less chances to do damage to the PCs. Which means they are weaker than expected. If the PCs lose less healing surges than expected, they can survive longer and fight more battles. This causes a huge imbalance in the encounter design/wealth expectation/pacing of an adventure.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Um, this is bad?

When the game expects otherwise, yes.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Um, this is a non-issue. Even without this change, if there was not a cleric in the party you are saying they would be dead in the water? That is just silly.

Not dead in the water, just harder. But it cancels out one of the advantages of playing a cleric...that it is easier to fight undead.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

More rounds does not equate to at-wills. That is drawing a false conclusion. And then further by the math it averts grind.

It depends on the solution you use. As I mention, if you give them more encounter powers, it does speed up combats. Mostly by making anyone with more encounter powers better than all the other classes. If you give all classes no at-wills and more encounter powers, it just makes them ALL better and reduces the difficulty of all monsters.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

The wizard needs a boost and this is a very valid one. Lowering the tier requirement for arcane mastery feat is a good fix to them.

I don't think they need a boost. They appear to, if you are used to them being more powerful in older editions, but the ability to hit multiple creatures with most of their powers while hitting Reflex helps them a lot. If you remove their at-wills, they will for SURE need a boost, however.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Luckily the game is run by a DM and not a hack of a computer program. If you are suggesting that the DM should not tailor encounters to the PCs, that is just wrong headed thinking. Even encounters from modules have to be tweaked some for the party. I see this as a non-issue.

If he isn't suggesting it, then I am. I'm telling you that the vast majority of DMs out there don't have time to tailor encounters to their PCs. I'm also telling you that a number of them don't WANT to tailor encounters to their PCs.

I certainly don't think it should be a necessity. I think of encounters as a "what if" scenario. What IF there was a group of cultists planning to bring back their dark god. What IF a group of PCs decided to stop them. What happens? At the same time, I want my players to be able to play whatever the most fun is for them and not have to change the entire scenario around them. If I tailor the encounters to my group, it ruins the what if. It turns it into "What if a group of PCs ran across a bunch of encounters specifically designed for them?" Which isn't that much fun for me.

I've been running Living Greyhawk adventures for years without adjusting them to the party that was playing it. I've been running Living Forgotten Realms now for 6 months in 4e without adjusting adventures to the party. I've run published adventures in my home games for years in 3e and 3.5e without adjusting a single one of them to my party.

They don't need to be adjusted, and I'm not going to do unneeded work when there is laundry to be done, movies to be watched, books to be read, lawns to be mowed and so on. I think that the game system should be balanced enough so I don't have to. I also take offense to the fact that your implication is that I'm somehow a mindless computer because I don't adjust them.

Even if I was going to adjust them for my party...how do you adjust them? This is always the question I have when someone says, "You need to adjust for your party". If I have a wizard who uses 90% fire spells but has 10% of his spells as cold spells...well, is a creature with fire immunity but vulnerability to cold a bad idea to send at the party? What if is is Fire Resistance 30? 20? Is it worth it to make the wizard feel useless for a battle in order to allow the fighter to shine?

Sure, I could come up with answers to these questions, but they'd be guesses. Not based on anything other than a gut feeling of what they'd be able to handle. I could be(and have been) completely wrong when adjusting things. I've nearly killed off an entire party. I've made an enemy so easy that they died before taking an action. All while thinking I was doing the right thing.

[Remathilis]

A possible fix could be to use the Saga system: rolling a natural 20 on a power refreshes your encounter powers. Check out SAGA for more details.