I'n a little concerned...

[FitzTheRuke]

You really CAN move people around in a real fight quite easily. The main reason being that as a defender, if you try to hold your ground when someone attempts a push, you will likely get yourself killed, so you allow it and move back. It's not really a matter of the attacker overpowering the defender and shoving him back most of the time, it's a give-and-take.

I really don't see a problem with at-will abilities that give evidence to the fighting style of a given class. But then what do I know? I've played 4e seven times now and I love it, so I guess I'm biased.

Fitz

 

[billd91]

That's the thing though... as far as my understanding goes, even a first level character has options of multiple at-will abilities that they can choose from, and these options increase as they level up.

Sure, the basic attack isnt that sexy, but say you're playing a warlock... you have a straight up at-will damage dealing attack, but you also have the option of an attack that does less damage but conceals you from the enemy. Both of them are optimal for different situations, and it is up to both the player and the DM to make sure that those options are utilitzed to their fullest. Regardless, those options are there, which cannot be said for 3rd edition.

I'll admit that there are pre-defined abilities, with some strength, that aren't in 3E, but they're also doing away with an array of options that 3E had, from the sounds of things. A warlock always had an option between eldritch blast and whipping out a crossbow. He also had a variety of other options that were far riskier because of the penalties you faced if you didn't have a feat to give you an advantage (bull rush, overrun, grapple, unarmed attack, trip, disarm, etc). So they weren't particularly credible for a warlock, particularly not compared to the main one he had in the eldritch bolt. Now, he's got a couple more options that might shine in a particular situations.

But there's another cost to other character types. If things like trips are now encounter powers for fighters, that's an option lost compared to 3.5 when trip could be tried any number of times. Same with disarm. Same with bull rush if that doesn't happen to figure into your at will powers. Those options weren't always great options for all warrior-type characters, but they could all be resorted to if the situation warranted it. Now?

The net result for me is that while some options sound like good ideas, and I like a certain amount of per encounter power ideas, I don't see a whole ton of progress being made in 4e as a game compared to 3.5. Some options are being added but others are being constrained in ways that I don't particularly like. They may be making those constraints so that the power has a certain significance, but why should taking that significant action be constrained to a particular character build rather than the player having the wit to think of applying a more general choice at an advantageous time?

That's why a lot of 4e changes come out as a wash for me.

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

The reason I'm okay with things like trip being encounter powers is that I thought 3e's philosophy regarding trip, disarm, and similar maneuvers made sense, but didn't work out very well in actual play.

Trip was balanced around the idea that it conferred an advantage (denying your enemy a full attack by forcing him to spend a move standing back up) over a normal attack and thus should be hard to do with specializing in it. It was so hard to do reliably without feats that people generally didn't bother with it, and with feats, it was effective and reliable enough that people spammed it if they had the specialization.

Neither of these is desirable from a gameplay standpoint. Making trip difficult to do and risky means that, if anything, it's -less- likely to be attempted if the situation is getting dire, because the risk of failure and being tripped in return will make a bad situation worse. And if you're good enough at it to do it reliably, you'll use it every round, more or less. And why shouldn't you?

From a "cool, exciting fantasy combat" perspective, attacks that knock people prone are supposed to happen more often than never, but they're also not supposed to happen continuously. How many protagonists in fantasy literature just spam the same move over and over? It makes for optimal gaming but poor storytelling and boring entertainment.

Trip as an encounter power will probably be quite reliable. You just can't use it every round. The game is, in fact, limiting your options in that way, because it's the best way to make trip simple, reliable, and effective without at the same time making it so good that fighters spend the majority of every combat kicking people in the shins to knock them down. It's a limitation in options with the intent of making DnD combat more like "cool, exciting fantasy combat" from books and movies, and less like a video game where you spam the move you've built your character around being the best at.

 

[Abstraction]

I remember from one designers comments (forget who) that if a character has a wide range of options, but most of those options are sub-optimal for that character, it really is a false option. A 3E warlock will never use a crossbow, trip, sunder or bull rush an opponent. Eldritch blast is simply better in every way than a crossbow. The attack of opportunity on a lightly-defended warlock means a special maneuver without the supporting feats is pretty well doomed to fail. So for all the possible "options" of 3E, a warlock's were pretty well limited to his eldritch blast and invocations. I think that feel will still exist for him in 4E.

For the fighter, I like that a fighter might have to make a decision between using charge, power attack, weapon focus or cleave in a round instead of getting all 4 stacked up in one attack. I like that a fighter can move around without being penalized they way they were in 3E. I even like that these options are very martial. There is nothing magicky about them in the slightest.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

This has been a really good discussion.

Keep the comments coming folks!

 

[Kwalish Kid]

But there's another cost to other character types. If things like trips are now encounter powers for fighters, that's an option lost compared to 3.5 when trip could be tried any number of times. Same with disarm. Same with bull rush if that doesn't happen to figure into your at will powers. Those options weren't always great options for all warrior-type characters, but they could all be resorted to if the situation warranted it. Now?

Except that we have examples of characters knocking opponents down without the trip power using the basic 4E mechanic (like Mousferatu's account of knocking two opponents off a table). The trip "power" (that is limited to once per encounter) is likely a more effective version of trip. I suspect that, like in Star Wars Saga Edition, basic versions of these combat actions remain and they are augmented by particular powers and feats.

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

I'm guessing the trip exploit will be an attack that does damage and knocks your opponent prone if it connects. No opposed ability checks, no chance to be tripped in return if you miss. You hit your opponent so hard he lands on his back.

In 3e, trip was powerful because it denied full attacks. I think in 4e, trip will be powerful because it denies movement. There's a critical difference there. 3e trip monkeys used the maneuver all the time because it limited their opponents ability to damage them. 4e characters will use it to stop enemies from moving to attack their friends, or to stop them from running away, or similar things. More interesting if you ask me.

The "untrained" version of trip, where you use some element of the terrain or surroundings to knock people prone, is -exactly what trip attacks were originally intended to be- in 3e. Situational. Useful at times, when you really need to stop someone from moving, or want to set them up for the party rogue to get better stabbing. But despite it being relatively simple (Mousferatu liked it because it was easy for the DM to eyeball, just said "strength vs. their reflex, beat it and they're prone"), it does no damage, and so it's not superior to using normal powers. It's something people will do every now and then when the situation warrants it.

The more effective form of trip is limited -because- it's so good you'd want to use it every round if you could. But if Kwalish Kid is right, the more mundane maneuver is more or less what it should be, in my opinion; a situational option that is helpful every now and then but doesn't dominate combat.

 

[Storminator]

If you look at the pregen fighter, she has 2 basic attacks. One melee, one ranged. The "player" chose to emphasize melee combat, and took an at-will ability that essentially eclipsed the basic attack. But if the fighter needs a ranged attack, she'll be using the basic attack.

Similarly, the ranger "player" took an at-will ability that eclipsed his basic ranged attack.

Presumably there are other at-will abilities to choose from, and it's possible to make some characters that don't have such strong preferences for their at-will abilities. I can imagine a wizard character with all at-wills being area affects, and needing to use a basic attack (crossbow ftw!) to attack individual enemies.

PS

 

[Puggins]

el-remmen,

I'm wondering if this make you feel any better:

The dwarf fighter gets a feat named Tide of Iron

Tide of Iron [Fighter]

Requires: Fighter Level 1

To use Tide of Iron, make a standard attack against an opponent. If you hit and if the opponent is one size larger than you or less, you may push the opponent 5'. If you push the opponent, you may advance into the square your opponent previously occupied.

Does it make you feel better about Tide of Iron?