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

[Sadrik]

Class at-will powers suffer from being too at-will. The image of the wizard eventually knocking down a wall by magic missiling it endlessly escapes my believability standards. At least martial characters can theoretically dull their axe or explicitly run out of ammo with their at-will powers.

A vanilla attack is supposed to be you basic attack and because of the game's design your at-wills are your vanilla attacks. Regardless of which attack they are, vanilla attacks become dull after 12 rounds of combat. Would removing class at-will powers make magic missile or reaping strike any more cool, say if they were moved to encounter powers at 21st level ability? Of course they become cooler because they don't happen every round and hey they are buffed up a bit too.

At-will powers are a limitation of the game system by my estimation. They make a lot of assumptions chiefly, you will always be attacking with your highest stat always.

The concern is that if this is altered, it may collapse the game and no one will hit or do a proper amount of damage to contribute in a meaningful way to combat.

In previous editions, not always attacking with your highest stat was not a very bad thing. Base attacks were based upon strength or dexterity only. So you knew that if you were going to be shooting a bow or swinging a sword you needed strength or dexterity at least a little. Additionally, you know that the "to-hit" rate for your spells was much higher than it is now (saving throws were relatively easily failed). You could afford a compromise on your stat line and spread it out and take two 16's or even a 16 and several 14's and still be competent. Now you need an 18 or 20 to be competent and you don't necessarily need strength or dexterity.

So what would the effect of removing the at-wills be? It would change character creation for sure. It may make characters invest in strength or dexterity more, when they normally would not have. This will lower the primary stat to do so (unless of course you have a class that needs one of those stats). Doing this may alter the 50% to hit rate assumption and make it more difficult to be competent.

A positive effect is that it will open up design for character types that are sub-par in the current rule set. For instance, a common character at my game table in previous editions was the elf cleric archer of correlon. This character was a dex and wis based character. Not a very viable build now. I mean, what would a cleric be doing with a bow let alone a high dex. A ranged cleric is a lazer cleric pure and simple and that only requires wisdom, and a very high wisdom at that to be effective. With making basic attacks the standard instead of lazers and reaping strikes, it says, "Ok I can make an archer cleric because I am not losing anything for doing it." Thus it opens up many more character concepts than were previously available. Again this is just one of the positive effects of making at-wills into encounter powers.

So should there be a basic at-will attack for each class so they can maximize their single bloated stat in combat? I say no. What do you say?

Much of this is taken from this thread here.

[Obryn]

Let me start near the end...

Originally Posted by Sadrik

For instance, a common character at my game table in previous editions was the elf cleric archer of correlon. This character was a dex and wis based character. Not a very viable build now. I mean, what would a cleric be doing with a bow let alone a high dex. A ranged cleric is a lazer cleric pure and simple and that only requires wisdom, and a very high wisdom at that to be effective. With making basic attacks the standard instead of lazers and reaping strikes, it says, "Ok I can make an archer cleric because I am not losing anything for doing it." Thus it opens up many more character concepts than were previously available. Again this is just one of the positive effects of making at-wills into encounter powers.

I'll disagree on this point, first. Elf cleric archers are very, very good in 4e. Add a Ranger multiclass, and they're pretty amazing.

Yes, clerics have ranged powers. However, those ranges are generally 5 - which is kinda short, really.

When I ran an Elf Cleric Archer, I didn't use the bow most of the time, but I used it plenty.

Now, continuing from the start...

Class at-will powers suffer from being too at-will. The image of the wizard eventually knocking down a wall by magic missiling it endlessly escapes my believability standards. At least martial characters can theoretically dull their axe or explicitly run out of ammo with their at-will powers.

There aren't any rules for dulling your axe on a wall. That's a ruling, not a rule.

If you can make a ruling on dulling your axe or breaking your hammer, you can make a ruling about "fatigue" or what have you from over-casting - or alternately make a ruling that magic missiles just don't do that.

A vanilla attack is supposed to be you basic attack and because of the game's design your at-wills are your vanilla attacks. Regardless of which attack they are, vanilla attacks become dull after 12 rounds of combat. Would removing class at-will powers make magic missile or reaping strike any more cool, say if they were moved to encounter powers at 21st level ability? Of course they become cooler because they don't happen every round and hey they are buffed up a bit too.

So, let me see if I get this right...

(1) Doing your at-will attack for 12 rounds is boring.
(2) Firing a crossbow or doing simple swings with your sword for 12 rounds is somehow not boring.

I'm perplexed. If you remove at-will powers, your basic attacks become your at-wills. Basic attacks do less interesting stuff and have less overall potency than at-wills. What's more, the structure of 4e basically means that classes are defined primarily by their powers. At-will powers are one way that your fighter or ranger will always play differently from your swordmage or cleric.

In previous editions, not always attacking with your highest stat was not a very bad thing. Base attacks were based upon strength or dexterity only. So you knew that if you were going to be shooting a bow or swinging a sword you needed strength or dexterity at least a little. Additionally, you know that the "to-hit" rate for your spells was much higher than it is now (saving throws were relatively easily failed). You could afford a compromise on your stat line and spread it out and take two 16's or even a 16 and several 14's and still be competent. Now you need an 18 or 20 to be competent and you don't necessarily need strength or dexterity.

So basically this primarily works to benefit classes which already need Strength & Dexterity...? I think there's a broader and more far-reaching effect than you anticipate.


As for the rest, I noticed that you don't seem to be talking about all at-wills. You didn't mention, for instance, any melee-type At-Wills. Really, what you were looking at were the magical ranged at-wills, at least as far as I saw. Is this a coincidence?

-O

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Class at-will powers suffer from being too at-will. The image of the wizard eventually knocking down a wall by magic missiling it endlessly escapes my believability standards. At least martial characters can theoretically dull their axe or explicitly run out of ammo with their at-will powers.

According to the rules, axes don't get dull.

If you're prepared to rule that axes will get dull after a while, what's keeping you from ruling that magic missiles 'get dull', as well?

You can explain this effect by either stating that you get diminishing returns after using the same spell over and over on the same target or by the wizard eventually getting mentally exhausted.

[Cadfan]

I'm going to disagree with you a bunch, then agree with you a little bit at the bottom. So read to that part before you respond.

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Class at-will powers suffer from being too at-will. The image of the wizard eventually knocking down a wall by magic missiling it endlessly escapes my believability standards. At least martial characters can theoretically dull their axe or explicitly run out of ammo with their at-will powers.

Add a small amount of realism. Look, the rules aren't going to spell out everything. The Fighter can theoretically chop down a castle with his sword because there aren't rules for dulling your weapon, unless you ad hoc them or presume fatigue. Just do the same for spellcasters.

A vanilla attack is supposed to be you basic attack and because of the game's design your at-wills are your vanilla attacks. Regardless of which attack they are, vanilla attacks become dull after 12 rounds of combat. Would removing class at-will powers make magic missile or reaping strike any more cool, say if they were moved to encounter powers at 21st level ability? Of course they become cooler because they don't happen every round and hey they are buffed up a bit too.

That makes no sense at all.

I mean, it kind of makes sense, but, if you make Reaping Strike an encounter power, there's STILL going to be a need for a generic attack power, and your complaints will STILL apply to whatever you use to replace Reaping Strike as the at will. Even if the replacement at will is a basic melee attack, its illogical to complain that Reaping Strike becomes vanilla after a long combat and that the solution is to limit its use and add in an attack that's vanilla BEFORE a long combat. At least with the present at will system you have a couple of at will attacks, instead of just the basic melee attack.

In previous editions, not always attacking with your highest stat was not a very bad thing. Base attacks were based upon strength or dexterity only. So you knew that if you were going to be shooting a bow or swinging a sword you needed strength or dexterity at least a little.

No you didn't. If you were a wizard, investing in dexterity so that your crossbow would be more accurate when you didn't want to use a spell was a noob mistake. Unless you knew your campaign was never going to get into the middle or high levels, it simply wasn't worth it. If you were getting something else out of it as well (maybe you like ray spells) then it was worthwhile. Otherwise, no.

Additionally, you know that the "to-hit" rate for your spells was much higher than it is now (saving throws were relatively easily failed). You could afford a compromise on your stat line and spread it out and take two 16's or even a 16 and several 14's and still be competent. Now you need an 18 or 20 to be competent and you don't necessarily need strength or dexterity.

This is true.

A positive effect is that it will open up design for character types that are sub-par in the current rule set. For instance, a common character at my game table in previous editions was the elf cleric archer of correlon. This character was a dex and wis based character. Not a very viable build now. I mean, what would a cleric be doing with a bow let alone a high dex. A ranged cleric is a lazer cleric pure and simple and that only requires wisdom, and a very high wisdom at that to be effective. With making basic attacks the standard instead of lazers and reaping strikes, it says, "Ok I can make an archer cleric because I am not losing anything for doing it." Thus it opens up many more character concepts than were previously available. Again this is just one of the positive effects of making at-wills into encounter powers.

Meh. It doesn't actually accomplish this goal unless you rework every class and adjust the power level. If you remove at will attacks, that trivially affects classes that use their primary ability score for their basic attacks, and greatly effects everyone else. Your elf archer cleric will still suck in an at will free system. He'll still suffer the same stat spread. Meanwhile the Fighter is still pumping strength just like before.

This would be doable, but merely removing at wills isn't enough. You'd need to rework the math.

So should there be a basic at-will attack for each class so they can maximize their single bloated stat in combat? I say no. What do you say?

I'm really not bothered by how characters stats are spread. I care a lot more about whether the characters can accomplish what their archetype suggests. Stats are numbers. I don't care if they're bloated or evenly spread or anything, so long as they are easy to handle mathematically and create good outcomes.

Alright, now the part where I agree with you.

Everyone worried that, in 4e, role would be destiny. People still worry about it, actually, even though it just shows that they don't know what they're talking about. Role isn't destiny. Role is incredibly mutable.

But power sources? Power sources are destiny.

Look at the 3e paladin versus the 4e paladin. The 3e paladin was mostly a martial character that learned divine magic as his career progressed. The 4e paladin starts out using the power of his god to augment his every attack. The only time he doesn't is when he charges or makes opportunity attacks.

The wizard and the cleric had a little bit of this as well. At low levels your wizard used a crossbow at times, and the cleric made basic attacks unaugmented by magic. Of course, it didn't work quite right, particularly for the wizard. Over time his spells per day increased and eventually his crossbow became obsolete, meaning that any resources he invested in improving his crossbow skill were lost.

4e solved that by letting everyone do their shtick immediately, and at will. In the process, that kind of killed off dual shtick characters.

Multiclassing brings them back a bit. If you want to create an elven cleric archer, you can just make an elf cleric, and multiclass ranger. Or create an elf ranger, and multiclass cleric. You'll have to split your ability scores, but that's not really a crisis. If you're spending a lot of resources multiclassing a cleric into a ranger, dexterity will give you as much benefit as charisma would have given the straight cleric.

I suspect that this doesn't really satisfy you, because you want the look and feel of a weapon being a backup for limited use magic. You want the weapon to be the bread and butter, generic attack, and the magic to be the big splash. Multiclassing doesn't really do that. In response, there isn't much I can say, except that running things your way would deny ME the archetypes I like, so maybe this conflict isn't really resolvable.

Overall, though, I think that making at wills into encounter abilities in order to force people to spread their stats more and take basic attacks is fundamentally a bad idea. It doesn't undo the repetition problem, it makes it worse by forcing you to repeat your basic attack instead of your two or three at wills. It encourages stat spread, but that's not an intrinsic good from where I'm sitting. It denies access to as many archetypes as it encourages. It makes combat less tactical (even if my fighter has used up every encounter and daily power he has, I can still try to maneuver for a cleave or shift people around with footwork lure).

And an easier solution for the lost archetypes exists. Use encounter powers to encourage them. The encounter power system and the weapon/multiclass system actually provide a great framework for adding unusual things to classes, like archery to a cleric. It wouldn't be tough to draft a multiclass path just to make this archetype available. It would do a lot less violence to the system to make these corner case character concepts available via feats and optional encounter powers than to rework the math.

[Rechan]

To continue the "dulling" argument, at a different angle:

Let's assume for a second that a weapon doesn't dull. A magical weapon, for instance.

Magic Missile does 2d4+stat.
A falchion does 2d4+stat.

Assuming the falchion doesn't break/dull, then both the MM and the falchion have an equal likelihood/speed when it comes to wall breaching.

If you can conceivably say, "Even a magically sharp weapon just cannot break down a wall, no matter how many times you hit the wall with it," then how can you say the same about a magic missile?

Both the falchion and the MM are doing on average 4+stat damage. Even if you avoided the "Dull" argument, it's quite easy to say "6 points of damage isn't enough to hurt a wall". The 3e equivalent of objects having resistance.

Or you could accept it. After all, mauls, picks and chisels can take down walls in RL. Granted, they're doing more damage (2d6/1d8/whatever a chisel does). A magic missile is less efficient at breaching a wall than say, a pickax, but it is doable if you're willing to just stand there and do it until you make a hole.

[Cadfan]

Multiclass Feat: Archer of Corellan
Prerequisite: Cleric, must worship Corellan, must know the power Lance of Faith.
Benefit: When you hit with a basic attack with a longbow, you may choose an ally within your line of sight. This ally gains +2 on its next attack against your target if that attack is performed before the end of your next turn.

I kind of like that. It does require you to pump both wisdom and dexterity, but that's not THAT onerous, particularly for an elf. And if this feat is followed up with a few other multiclass power swap feats, much like the weapon multiclasses we've seen, pumping dexterity goes from being sub par to a very good idea.

This is the strength of 4e. Instead of making universal rules then hacking them until they do what you want, just isolate and identify what you want, and create custom rules for what you want built right into the power system.

Give me a day or two, and I'll have a whole Corellan multiclass path written.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Multiclass Feat: Archer of Corellan
Prerequisite: Cleric, must worship Corellan, must know the power Lance of Faith.
Benefit: When you hit with a basic attack with a longbow, you may choose an ally within your line of sight. This ally gains +2 on its next attack against your target if that attack is performed before the end of your next turn.

Another solution is the Gladiator-article style of "Take this feat, modify your at-will".

Give me a day or two, and I'll have a whole Corellan multiclass path written.

Could you also make it paladins? Because paladins suffer the same. I know "OMg defenders shouldn't be ranged", but a paladin of Corellan using a bow makes sense.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Obryn

When I ran an Elf Cleric Archer, I didn't use the bow most of the time, but I used it plenty.

This is not a cleric archer then.

Originally Posted by Obryn

So, let me see if I get this right...

(1) Doing your at-will attack for 12 rounds is boring.
(2) Firing a crossbow or doing simple swings with your sword for 12 rounds is somehow not boring.

I don't think you quite grasped the argument. Yes they are both boring. So why don't you just use the most simple one and make it the basic one so other ones are more interesting. Change them to encounter powers, give starting characters a couple more of them, and now you have opened up more interesting character archetypes.

Originally Posted by Obryn

I'm perplexed. If you remove at-will powers, your basic attacks become your at-wills. Basic attacks do less interesting stuff and have less overall potency than at-wills. What's more, the structure of 4e basically means that classes are defined primarily by their powers. At-will powers are one way that your fighter or ranger will always play differently from your swordmage or cleric.

Whatever the actual vanilla attack is, it is less interesting if you do it 10 times in an encounter with your 2 encounter powers interspersed between. Give more encounter powers and make those vanilla attacks basic attacks and you wind up with a more desirable system. Not to mention the character design potentials that open up.

Originally Posted by Obryn

So basically this primarily works to benefit classes which already need Strength & Dexterity...? I think there's a broader and more far-reaching effect than you anticipate.

I realize this lowers effectiveness somewhat of non- STR and DEX based characters. What other far-reaching effects are you referring too?

[Vomax]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Could you also make it paladins? Because paladins suffer the same. I know "OMg defenders shouldn't be ranged", but a paladin of Corellan using a bow makes sense.

A paladin of Corellan seems like it would work better as a ranger with cleric or paladin multiclassing, and perhaps chain/scale proficiency feats.

[Vorput]

Could you just cap at will powers at a certain high number? Like 50?

I doubt any group will ever face enough combat to use 50 at will powers per day (though it's possible- in which case make the cap higher), and it would stop the wall problem you spoke of.

Eventually, one has to get tired after all- whether it's shooting arcane energy from your fingertips, or just having to swing that sword yet again.

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Another solution is the Gladiator-article style of "Take this feat, modify your at-will".

I considered that, but it just seemed like a whole lot of work to modify an at will with implement keywords to work with a weapon. You'd need to change so many little things. It seemed easier to create a feat that granted you a power attached to your ranged basic attack that was functionally the same thing as Lance of Faith with a longbow.

I have to admit, I'm a little stymied here because I don't know Corellan's lore very well. I'm not completely clear on what his backstory is, or what powers his followers should have. I rarely play in established universes.

Originally Posted by Rechan

Could you also make it paladins? Because paladins suffer the same. I know "OMg defenders shouldn't be ranged", but a paladin of Corellan using a bow makes sense.

I'd like to, but I can't seem to work out a way to make ranged attacks work with the paladin's mark in an easy and balanced manner. You can take a look at my Godhammer paladin in my signature for a previous effort at doing this. Its a neat design, but I just can't get it right.

It almost seems like maybe the best solution is to switch things around, and create a multiclass path for Rangers that transforms them into a paladin of Corellan. They wouldn't have "Paladin" in their class name, but it seems like this would be much, much more efficient and much much more functional.

Multiclass Feat: Champion of Corellan
Prerequisite: Ranger, Must worship Corellan
Benefit: You may choose to deal Radiant damage with your ranged attacks that use a longbow.

Then the encounter does something Corellan and Smiting themed, the utility does something leaderish (like Lay on Hands 1/day), and the daily does something really badass.

You could also do this with a paragon path, though that would delay entry until level 11. Or you could go crazy and do both, if you wanted a whole lot of paladin of corellan powers.

[Agamon]

I don't confuse class with archtype. I ran a doppleganger thief in a game last year. She wasn't a Rogue or even multiclassed as Rogue, but was effective at being sneaky and manipulative.

You want an archtype that is good at something the obvious class isn't? Pick a different class and have your character call himself whatever you want. I've found it pretty effective for mixing things up a bit.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I mean, it kind of makes sense, but, if you make Reaping Strike an encounter power, there's STILL going to be a need for a generic attack power, and your complaints will STILL apply to whatever you use to replace Reaping Strike as the at will.

No, a basic attack would be the vanilla attack. It would be boring, but it is understandably boring not to mention easier and quicker in real time to resolve.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

No you didn't. If you were a wizard, investing in dexterity so that your crossbow would be more accurate when you didn't want to use a spell was a noob mistake. Unless you knew your campaign was never going to get into the middle or high levels, it simply wasn't worth it. If you were getting something else out of it as well (maybe you like ray spells) then it was worthwhile. Otherwise, no.

Ah but what if you wanted to be a wizard that invests in a sword and you wanted to use that as your backup weapon to your spells. No wait wait I know the answer... play a swordmage.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Meh. It doesn't actually accomplish this goal unless you rework every class and adjust the power level. If you remove at will attacks, that trivially affects classes that use their primary ability score for their basic attacks, and greatly effects everyone else. Your elf archer cleric will still suck in an at will free system. He'll still suffer the same stat spread. Meanwhile the Fighter is still pumping strength just like before.

I understand this, this may simply be appropriate. Those that pump strength should be effective in melee. A wizard could pump strength and go into melee, if that was how a player wanted to play their character. If you want to play a single stat character then you are able to if you want to play a character that uses more than one stat say like a fighter who uses a bow you can easily do this. All of their powers would key off of melee stuff but maybe they want to use a bow or a sword for their vanilla attacks. If they have at-wills that make using a bow a poor tactical choice then they will 9 out of 10 times ignore the bow.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

This would be doable, but merely removing at wills isn't enough. You'd need to rework the math.

This may very well be true. But I do know that removing them makes more character archetypes available for play.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Everyone worried that, in 4e, role would be destiny. People still worry about it, actually, even though it just shows that they don't know what they're talking about. Role isn't destiny. Role is incredibly mutable.

But power sources? Power sources are destiny.

I don't agree, but this is neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

4e solved that by letting everyone do their shtick immediately, and at will. In the process, that kind of killed off dual shtick characters.

Except that your solution for resolving the problem of a cleric with a bow is to wait until 11th level. Yeah, touche'.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Multiclassing brings them back a bit. If you want to create an elven cleric archer, you can just make an elf cleric, and multiclass ranger. Or create an elf ranger, and multiclass cleric. You'll have to split your ability scores, but that's not really a crisis. If you're spending a lot of resources multiclassing a cleric into a ranger, dexterity will give you as much benefit as charisma would have given the straight cleric.

So spend a bunch of character creation resources to gain a couple of encounter/daily powers that will come into play 2-3 rounds out of a 12 round combat? This does not synergize in an acceptable way. Pull out my bow make a couple of attacks and then start shooting lazers. No, sorry doesn't work for me.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I suspect that this doesn't really satisfy you, because you want the look and feel of a weapon being a backup for limited use magic. You want the weapon to be the bread and butter, generic attack, and the magic to be the big splash. Multiclassing doesn't really do that. In response, there isn't much I can say, except that running things your way would deny ME the archetypes I like, so maybe this conflict isn't really resolvable.

You are right, this does make a nice point. What archetype would you be denied? You can literally run every character/weapon combination and not have any problems doing it. Explain to me how you are now limited in you weapon choice/class archetype. You are not, just like the RAW except that you are not taking sub-par choice for making your basic attacks with a non-class standard weapon.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Overall, though, I think that making at wills into encounter abilities in order to force people to spread their stats more and take basic attacks is fundamentally a bad idea. It doesn't undo the repetition problem, it makes it worse by forcing you to repeat your basic attack instead of your two or three at wills.

Again, the repetition problem is not that you do it over and over and that is bad. It is that no matter what your vanilla attack is basic or at-will it becomes dry and boring after doing it ~10 times in a combat. The reality is that most classes use only one at-will power, the one the character is designed around to use best.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

It encourages stat spread, but that's not an intrinsic good from where I'm sitting.

Fair enough you prefer primary stats to be 18 or 20.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

It denies access to as many archetypes as it encourages.

This is false.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

It makes combat less tactical (even if my fighter has used up every encounter and daily power he has, I can still try to maneuver for a cleave or shift people around with footwork lure).

This could be true, some may not see this as automatically a good thing. I for one think that cutting any extra time out of an encounter to reduce grind is a good thing. If by your suggestion reduces grind I am all for it.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

And an easier solution for the lost archetypes exists. Use encounter powers to encourage them. The encounter power system and the weapon/multiclass system actually provide a great framework for adding unusual things to classes, like archery to a cleric. It wouldn't be tough to draft a multiclass path just to make this archetype available. It would do a lot less violence to the system to make these corner case character concepts available via feats and optional encounter powers than to rework the math.

This is not a clean or easy solution and it does not do what you thought that 4e was supposed to do: "4e solved that by letting everyone do their shtick immediately, and at will. In the process, that kind of killed off dual shtick characters."

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Agamon

I don't confuse class with archtype. I ran a doppleganger thief in a game last year. She wasn't a Rogue or even multiclassed as Rogue, but was effective at being sneaky and manipulative.

You want an archtype that is good at something the obvious class isn't? Pick a different class and have your character call himself whatever you want. I've found it pretty effective for mixing things up a bit.

Well this is not intended to make skill based archetypes any different so I am not sure how this makes anything different.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

This is not a cleric archer then.

Why not?

It played very similar to cleric archers I've seen. There was one in my Expedition to the Demonweb Pits game. Mostly, the cleric sat back and casted spells. When those weren't appropriate, they attacked with the bow. Now, at lower levels in 3e when a cleric's spells aren't as compelling, it may make a difference. But by 5th, we're looking at a single-stat Zen Archery spellcaster wearing heavy armor. Likely slinging more Hold Persons than arrows.

If you want a cleric archer who uses arrows a lot more than spells, I'd recommend starting them as a Ranger and multiclassing into Cleric, rather than the other way around.

I don't think you quite grasped the argument. Yes they are both boring. So why don't you just use the most simple one and make it the basic one so other ones are more interesting. Change them to encounter powers, give starting characters a couple more of them, and now you have opened up more interesting character archetypes.

I'm sorry, but I still don't quite know why that would be an improvement.

Wouldn't it maybe be a better solution to add more variety for at-wills to account for those other character archetypes you're looking for? (I'm also having a hard time imagining what other character archetypes you could be looking for - I get the cleric archer, but I hardly see the crossbow-slinging wizard as a perennial favorite.)

As an example of a new At-Will...

Divine Archery, At-Will 1
Weapon, Radiant
Wis vs AC
Hit: [W]+Wisdom Modifier Radiant damage

...and there's your cleric archer's main at-will. It's not too impressive, but it's cleric-y in that it uses Wisdom (much like the ubiquitous Zen Archery in 3e) and deals Radiant damage.

Whatever the actual vanilla attack is, it is less interesting if you do it 10 times in an encounter with your 2 encounter powers interspersed between. Give more encounter powers and make those vanilla attacks basic attacks and you wind up with a more desirable system. Not to mention the character design potentials that open up.

If your goal is to make things more varied, why not keep the at-wills but just add more Encounter abilities? This would encourage variety between characters, as well, since at-wills are a primary source of differences. There's plenty of folks who want to encourage more Encounter and Daily powers - I think there's a big thread about Power Recharge mechanics in the house-rules forum, for example.

Can you list some other design potentials that open up with this?

I realize this lowers effectiveness somewhat of non- STR and DEX based characters. What other far-reaching effects are you referring too?

That's not enough?

I think I'm still confused by what, specifically, you're going after here. Is it specifically wizardly and clerical at-wills that are the problem? What kinds of character archetypes and design innovations would be encouraged by removing at-wills, adding another encounter power, and making everyone basic attack all the time? How would the elimination of at-wills enhance character archetypes more than making new at-wills?

-O

[GMforPowergamers]

my best friend currently plays a wizard with no weapons...and in a game a few months back we had a cleric with no weapons...he used his faith as his weapon...

how would they work in this new system...

[Agamon]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

Well this is not intended to make skill based archetypes any different so I am not sure how this makes anything different.

My point is that if I wanted to play a bow-weilding priest of Corellon, I'd make a Ranger multi'd into Cleric. And in fact, that was my other PC I've played in 4e.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

my best friend currently plays a wizard with no weapons...and in a game a few months back we had a cleric with no weapons...he used his faith as his weapon...

how would they work in this new system...

They would fill the "hiding behind tables" archetype.

-O

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Agamon

My point is that if I wanted to play a bow-weilding priest of Corellon, I'd make a Ranger multi'd into Cleric. And in fact, that was my other PC I've played in 4e.

And really, what is the "Priest" archetype, exactly? Outside of D&D, I don't see a lot of "Clerics". Moses wasn't exactly dungeoncrawling, and he wasn't using weapons or anything, really. Friar Tuck never fought. Etc etc.

You could achieve a "Priest" archetype with any character; spreading your god's word, being reverent, and holding an official position in the Church is all in the roleplay, not in the mechanics. A ranger can be a priest, just like a wizard can be a priest. "I actually heal the wounded and buff my allies with Divine blessing", that's a Cleric (or a paladin, or a...) If your character can do the former without shootin' heals around, then by all means.

how would they work in this new system...

? Wizards don't carry weapons. Maybe in early 3e, where wizards used crossbows, but not today. Same with devoted clerics.

Hell, the bard in my group has a wand and a shield.

[Caliban]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Friar Tuck never fought.

according to some of the Robin Hood tales, Friar Tuck was a skilled swordsman and did fight. But I understand your point.

? Wizards don't carry weapons. Maybe in early 3e, where wizards used crossbows, but not today. Same with devoted clerics.

My 6th lvl eladrin wizard begs to differ with you. He is currently +13 attack and 1d8+11 damage with his +2 adamantine longsword.