• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

How All Powers Could be At-Will

ren1999

First Post
My answer is to reduce the burst range and the damage of burst spells.
For spells that render monsters and characters helpless, I removed the burst ability and gave the targets many chances to save versus helpless. Here are some sample powers.
If these target-helpless powers are still too powerful for at-will we could always make the helpless effect last only one round. For example, a charmed character attacks his or her own party for 1 round and then the charm is broken.

Light Up
evocation/class lvl 1/You outline one foe in an aura of light even if invisible. The foe takes a Stealth -10 penalty./int vs int/reroll to maintain/As a free action, you create an adjustable radius of light for the party.

Fire Ball

evocation/class lvl 1/ranged 20/int vs dex/You shoot a fire ball doing int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends/2 targets at 5th, 3 targets 10th lvl

Burning Hand

evocation/class lvl 2/at-will/int vs ac/You strike with your fire aura staff, dagger or wand doing 1[w]+int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends

Explosive Rune

evocation/class lvl 3/ranged 20 burst 1/int vs dex/You send a steel ball with a fire rune scroll on it that explodes and does int mod+2 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends

Combust Foe

evocation/class lvl 4/ranged 20/int vs int/You cause 1 foe int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends

Turn Alignment
enchantment/class lvl 1/encounter x1/ranged line of sight burst 2/cha vs wis/You cause foes of opposing alignments to have the frightened condition and try to get out of your line of sight.

Little Dance

enchantment/class lvl 2/ranged line of sight/cha vs wis/You force your enemy to laugh and or dance wasting their next turn.

Cause Sleep

enchantment/class lvl 3/ranged line of sight/cha vs wis/The sleeping foe wakes and ends the effect from an ally's standard action slap or 1 enemy's automatic hit and damage.

Hold Foe

enchantment/class lvl 4/ranged line of sight/cha vs wis/You bind your enemy who can not move and takes an automatic hit and normal damage. The enemy can roll a wis save versus your cha after being hit.

Command Foe
enchantment/class lvl 5/ranged line of sight/cha vs wis/You force 1 foe to approach you, or drop everything, or grovel on the ground before you./The foe rolls wis vs DC10+your cha mod at the beginning of its turn to try to break the control.

Charm Foe
enchantment/class lvl 6/ranged line of sight/cha vs wis/You force 1 foe to obey any command including attacking the self or an ally./The foe rolls wis vs DC10+your cha mod after attacking each time to try to break the charm. The victim also rolls wis vs your cha at the beginning of its turn.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Kavon

Explorer
But you're jumping ahead of the question of whether all powers should be at will.

I don't think they should.

If anything, I can see the argument for martial powers- but I don't think we need "powers" at all for fighters and their ilk.
And I can see a case being made for giving the option to remove all per day or per encounter abilities, or to have things be at will and having encounter or daily limited ways to boost these.

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way (it's not just directed at you, I've seen this sort of talk quite a bit), and it's fine that you would prefer it not to be so, but please keep the whole "the game should be the way I prefer it to be" or "the game doesn't need this thing I don't prefer" talk out of it - it's simply not productive.
Keep the game open to people with varying preferences, please. :)


Having everything be at will is a nice idea (there will definately be people who prefer it like that), but seeing as it would require additional powered down spell write-ups, I don't see it being added to the initial release.
But who knows, right?
 

Abstruse

Legend
Bleech...that takes anything remotely approaching strategy out of the game. It's no longer a roleplaying game and more like a board game version of Zelda or God of War if there's nothing limiting how many times you can do things.

Also, you'd do well to rename the outlining in light power to "Faerie Fire". It's an almost identical effect that's been in the game since forever.
 

AlioTheFool

First Post
Ever since the psionics rules came out in 4e, I've advocated that they should be adapted to the whole power system. I firmly believe all abilities should be at-will, and have the ability to boost their effectiveness on a limited (per encounter & even more a small number of times per day) basis. I personally despise Vancian, and I see no reason why fighters shouldn't also have a system for abilities beyond "I repeatedly hit it with my sword", so obviously that clouds my opinion.

It's pretty clear that the design team isn't looking at this direction, at least initially, though. The pre-4e crowd is vocal that 4e remnants are undesired in D&DNext, and the dev team is clearly satisfying that with the core rules. Will that change with an optional module? Possibly. I'm a big fan of Mike Mearls, and in his Reddit Q&A he said they're aware of 4e fans dissatisfaction and are looking for ways to appease us. Until he gives me a reason to do otherwise, I'm going to keep faith in him to bring those like me things to make us happy.
 

the Jester

Legend
I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way (it's not just directed at you, I've seen this sort of talk quite a bit), and it's fine that you would prefer it not to be so, but please keep the whole "the game should be the way I prefer it to be" or "the game doesn't need this thing I don't prefer" talk out of it - it's simply not productive.
Keep the game open to people with varying preferences, please. :)

Dude, you're preaching to the choir here- I'm the poster boy for allowing different playstyle preferences. Note the "I thinks" and "I don't thinks" in my post.

That said, if we don't voice our opinion and feedback, we may well end up with a monstrosity of mismatched rules that don't fit together at all.

And IMHO fighters don't need "powers"- if the 5e fighter is going to emulate the 4e version (and I think there should be options for it), it should be closer to the Essentials model, with stances and the like, rather than the AEDU model. I think the very term "power" when it comes to fighters rubs a lot of D&D players the wrong way (thus leading to so much of the divisiveness that 4e brought to the D&D fan base), and I think it would be much better to choose another term. (In fact, everything we've seen so far concerning the complex fighter seems to imply that they have done just that- I've seen a lot of references to manuevers, rather than to powers).

Even if there are options for fighters to pretty much follow an AEDU model, I hope they don't call their abilities "powers".
 

Kavon

Explorer
Dude, you're preaching to the choir here- I'm the poster boy for allowing different playstyle preferences. Note the "I thinks" and "I don't thinks" in my post.
That might be so, but with what you said, it does seem like you'd rather close the door on this idea because of your personal preference, instead of leaving it open for people that might like it.


That said, if we don't voice our opinion and feedback, we may well end up with a monstrosity of mismatched rules that don't fit together at all.
Hence why I said it would probably not be made available in the initial release.

Like [MENTION=82767]AlioTheFool[/MENTION] said, it looks quite a bit like the way psionics worked in 4e. I don't see why it would be a problem to have them make something like this for us to work with if we prefer it like this.


And IMHO fighters don't need "powers"- if the 5e fighter is going to emulate the 4e version (and I think there should be options for it), it should be closer to the Essentials model, with stances and the like, rather than the AEDU model. I think the very term "power" when it comes to fighters rubs a lot of D&D players the wrong way (thus leading to so much of the divisiveness that 4e brought to the D&D fan base), and I think it would be much better to choose another term. (In fact, everything we've seen so far concerning the complex fighter seems to imply that they have done just that- I've seen a lot of references to manuevers, rather than to powers).

Even if there are options for fighters to pretty much follow an AEDU model, I hope they don't call their abilities "powers".
Isn't this just semantics? What does it matter what it was once called? It's the way it works that matters.
All in all, I'd say the term "abilities" is perfect for a general replacement for the term "powers" used in 4e.. But then there's a conflict with the term "Ability Score" (which, tradition aside, I don't really 'get' for what it's representing).
If you're objecting to the OP using the term "powers" to bring across his example - just imagine using your term of choice instead. ^^
 


Bleech...that takes anything remotely approaching strategy out of the game. It's no longer a roleplaying game and more like a board game version of Zelda or God of War if there's nothing limiting how many times you can do things.
So...with a party of fighters it's no longer a roleplaying game and more like a board game?

I wasn't aware that the definition of an RPG included "there must be things you can only do a limited number of times."
 

Remove ads

Top