Bonus utility powers?

[CapnZapp]

I've come to understand that it's a fairly common comment that out of combat utility powers get the short shrift in 4E. That would be because to select one for your character, you must give up an in-combat power, which in a normal (combat heavy) game sees much more use in play.

So that got me thinking about adding something like this to my game: "at each level where you get to choose a utility power, you get an additional utility power to be used out of combat" or some such.

However, when I started browsing the rulebook, I quickly realized several of my players' characters won't benefit from such a rule. (I have a fighter, a ranger, a rogue and a warlock; and I've only checked the 2nd level and the 6th level powers)

Is this sentiment only general bitchin' from rogue and wizard players then?

And if not; what do you propose is a good phrasing of the houserule?(Just saying "you get two" solves nothing; because presumably, if a player prefers in-combat utility powers, he will only select another in-combat utility power. I'm guessing the point of a houserule is to end up with characters with out of combat utility powers; not merely more combat powers)

 

[Lakoda]

Come up with some generic out of combat utilities that can be taken by any character from any class or power source - maybe require a player have a certain skill training to take one (obviously you should have a one for each skill then). Then I would allow players to have only 1 OOC utility per tier witch they'd gain at 2/12/22.

 

[Mesh Hong]

My gut response would be to point out that if a player chooses an in combat utility power over an out of combat power than it is their decision and they should live with it.

If you have a choice of 4 powers at any given level it is noone elses fault if one of the powers you didn't pick would have given you an advantage in a certain situation.

One of the nice features of 4e is being able to retrain a skill, feat or power at each level. Making it possible for a player to change their mind and try out various options as their character develops.

All in all it encourages a balanced approach to character development, it is still possible for a character to purely focus on combat but it is not necessarily the best option.

Also I suppose it depends on the RP to Combat balance in your campaign, if your players do not see the use in out of combat skills and powers enough for them to actually choose them in the first place it is surely an indication that you are running a more combat focused game.

This to me seems like a GM forced house rule to try and crowbar a combat heavy party towards non combat situations, I am not sure that this sort of heavy handed approach would work due to the wildly differening options the characters will have for utility powers. (note I am prepared to be very very wrong here as I am making broad sweeping assumption about the motive for your post, please don't take offence!)

 

[keterys]

Is it really their choice? This is just like when people used to bitch that Phantom Steed took up the same slot as Fireball, that they weren't preparing Fireball?

They should be in a different bucket, like how rituals are now.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Should they be in a different bucket?

Maybe, maybe not.

I suppose you could let people have an additional non-combat utility power of their level or lower as a feat. If you did this it would handle it in a similar way to skills.

I see skills falling under into the same problem as non combat utility powers. At character creation you are forced into a narrow range that doesn't change or expand throughout your adventuring career.

So I suppose you could design a system that incorporated skill advancement and utility powers in one. Maybe some sort of points buy per level where you could either improve in a range of skills or gain a handy new trick of your level, or improve in a few skills and gain a trick of a lower level?

 

[Stalker0]

Is it really their choice? This is just like when people used to bitch that Phantom Steed took up the same slot as Fireball, that they weren't preparing Fireball?

They should be in a different bucket, like how rituals are now.

Keterys makes a good point in that combat utility powers are often really really good. Some utility powers are better than attack powers in my opinion.

To me its the single choice, you are always tempted to go with the best option. When you have two choices, then you go for the best option, but the second choice can be more of the fun, flavorful choice.

You might consider allowing players to pick 2 utilities each time.

 

[CapnZapp]

My gut response would be to point out that if a player chooses an in combat utility power over an out of combat power than it is their decision and they should live with it.

This to me seems like a GM forced house rule to try and crowbar a combat heavy party towards non combat situations, I am not sure that this sort of heavy handed approach would work due to the wildly differening options the characters will have for utility powers. (note I am prepared to be very very wrong here as I am making broad sweeping assumption about the motive for your post, please don't take offence!)

What's so wrong with that if it were true?

However, it (sort of) isn't. Instead, it's the game that is combat heavy, not the party specifically. In combat utilities simply are better in a game such as mine, where combat is the mainstay.

If the campaign didn't have combat every session, and was heavy on rp'ing, investigation or socializing, you would be right. But that isn't the case.

Instead, it's almost the opposite. I would like to allow my party to choose some non-combat options without them feeling they're taking suboptimal choices. (If there is no in combat alternative, taking the out-of-combat util isn't suboptimal! )

Is it really their choice? This is just like when people used to bitch that Phantom Steed took up the same slot as Fireball, that they weren't preparing Fireball?

They should be in a different bucket, like how rituals are now.

QFT!

I see skills falling under into the same problem as non combat utility powers.

I do too. But then I see skills in a different bucket than combat powers. And that is probably not what you meant...

So I suppose you could design a system that incorporated skill advancement and utility powers in one. Maybe some sort of points buy per level where you could either improve in a range of skills or gain a handy new trick of your level, or improve in a few skills and gain a trick of a lower level?

TBH, I'd like to keep it simple. I wouldn't involve skills in this.

I'm simply asking if anyone's tried giving their characters some non-combat utilities! Or if this isn't a real problem and it's only skill monkey classes that are complaining they don't get to choose all their juice utils?

And, you have, how did you do it? Two utils each time you get an util? Or what? And how about Fighters and other classes that simply don't have any non-combat utils?

 

[keterys]

A house rule that I want to try, but haven't spent the cycles on fleshing out, was to add a new bucket of powers to the game. It would include non-combat utilities only, with a core of skill-based powers (including moving all the current skill ones that aren't directly combat facing like Astral Speech, Holy Lantern), and then adding racial and class flavor powers as well, possibly a couple of the more wonky feats turned into powers.

The intent was for them to be available at levels x1, x4, x8. (1, 4, 8, 11, 14, ... 28, etc)

 

[CapnZapp]

I've gone through the PHB now, and these are the level 2 & 6 utilities that I feel would be appropriate to add to such a bucket:

Cleric - none (well, Holy Lantern, but that's magical in nature and not appropriate to martial classes)
Fighter - none
Paladin - Astral Speech
Ranger - Crucial Advice, Skilled Companion
Rogue - Fleeting Ghost, Great Leap, Master of Deceit, Quick Fingers, Chameleon (possibly), Mob Mentality, Nimble Climb
Warlock - Beguiling Tongue
Warlock - none
Wizard - none

So, essentially, this boils down to this question:

Do we feel the Rogue utilities are under-used? (If you have one or zero Rogues, chances are you won't see very many of these powers in the campaign, indicating a possible "yes").

However, would it be unbalancing (or simply unfun) to allow all characters to choose from the above list for a bonus utility? (At heroic at least; it's possible you'd need to assemble a separate list for paragon and epic)

 

[Mesh Hong]

I think I would count the rogues Chameleon power as a combat utility power as in my experience that is where it is most potent, I would be very dubious about giving this power away as a free bonus power.

For the record the Rogue in my game has Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon, Close Quarters and has already told me he will pick hide in plain sight at 16th.

I like these kinds of threads as they make me actually look at the player side rules and always seem to change my opinions on the mechanics of the system.

The case in point here is that it really is a no brainer for Rogues, the stealth powers are so good that it would be really hard not to take them.

However I think that if you were going to give players access to another bucket of utility powers they should be generic and seperate from the class specific choices and also should just be tier based and not level dependant.