make ALL attack powers "daily"

[sunrisekid]

I'm curious about a possible house rule in which all non-basic attacks are altered into a daily power (ie, at-wills and encounter are usable only once per day). This means that normal combat will consist mostly of basic attacks. Powers are chosen per normal for character creation and leveling but the actual use of each attack power is limited to daily usage.

I would like some advise as to how much of a game-breaker this may or may not be.

The reason I ask is because my players have complained that combats feel too scripted (eg, "I'll flank, sly-flourish, and backstab... again.. and again.."). One player described it as feeling like the at-wills detracted from imagining how the combat appeared in her imagination. As the DM I'm open-minded about coming up with alternatives in order to keep the crowd happy, and wonder if this might be enough to "fix" their concerns - though obviously it's a fundamental change that might utterly skew combat, in ways beyond how I imagine it might.

I imagine this won't make the game any more deadly than, say, Basic D&D. But maybe I'm underestimating?

Me and the players are otherwise happy with 4E but the combats (and I really hate to say this) do feel a bit like playing a video game in ways that previous versions of D&D did not convey to us.

 

[Wannamingo]

I really don't know how making basic attacks all the time will help with imagining the combat.

I think you guys are holding on only to the name of the powers, instead of really picturing how a barbarian shouts a battle cry, then makes a wide arc with his stone hammer, landing a heavy blow on his opponent's knee and dropping him on the ground with a loud noise , you're probably tied to the words "Oak Hammer Rage".

Reading the flavour text helps at the first time, imagining other ways to have the same effect with combat moves also does, I don't see how basic attacks would help with that.

Edit: As for the game mechanics, the characters would really be somewhat less powerful and have much less options in combat (remember the 3e fighter? attack or grab, your choice). Well, I wouldn't do it. =p

 

[Alex319]

Here's another thread that discusses some of the same issues you were discussing:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/252807-i-hope-its-not-just-me.html

 

[CapnZapp]

I really don't know how making basic attacks all the time will help with imagining the combat.

I believe the issue is when you think of "special attacks" as buttons you press, while "basic attacks" is the bread and butter of combat you are used to from other fantasy games, the non-descript actions whose color isn't already filled in for you.

In essence, lots of players don't see special attacks as being open to interpretation and customization. They're seen as highly scripted fixed attack forms, where you only "press a button" and your character goes through the motions.

Compared to basic attacks, where the lack of description itself is taken as a permission and encouragement to make up your own story, your own explanation on how fist met face.

Not saying this is true for all players hesitant to 4E. Only that it is probably a part of the story for some such players, according to what I understand of it.

 

[Garthanos]

I believe the issue is when you think of "special attacks" as buttons you press, while "basic attacks" is the bread and butter of combat you are used to from other fantasy games, the non-descript actions whose color isn't already filled in for you.

In essence, lots of players don't see special attacks as being open to interpretation and customization. They're seen as highly scripted fixed attack forms, where you only "press a button" and your character goes through the motions.

Compared to basic attacks, where the lack of description itself is taken as a permission and encouragement to make up your own story, your own explanation on how fist met face.

Not saying this is true for all players hesitant to 4E. Only that it is probably a part of the story for some such players, according to what I understand of it.

Re-skinning, is for 4e, the easiest and most balanced of "house rule" and doing it on the fly to enable and enrich the experience... may just take practice, and remember the DM needs to do it with the monsters actions too, if you play them boringly well guess what the players will do.

 

[sunrisekid]

In essence, lots of players don't see special attacks as being open to interpretation and customization. They're seen as highly scripted fixed attack forms, where you only "press a button" and your character goes through the motions.

Compared to basic attacks, where the lack of description itself is taken as a permission and encouragement to make up your own story, your own explanation on how fist met face.

Well said, this is exactly the case. The re-skinning comment is precisely how I've spiced up gaming sessions over the many years that I've been DMing, though I sympathize with my player's complaint. None of my players want to DM so I have no opportunity to experience their complaint or frustration regarding 4E iterative at-wills. *shrug*. Personally, I quite like the flavour text, especially for the Star Warlock (so Lovecraftian . I don't really want to give up 4E because I like the stream-lined mechanics - in my opinion 4E fixed everything I didn't like with 3E. Unfortunately, now I have players who, eg, don't like the fact that everytime her rogue attacks it's always "sly" and it's always a "flourish" such that it can't not be sly nor a flourish. CapnZapp's comment is dead-on. But I'm not looking to resuscitate this debate, we've all seen it rage across the boards since before and after 4E was released.

As as side note, I took the players through a couple of Basic D&D sessions and they really liked it. I think partly because the game rule crunch didn't interfere with the playing experience. As I said, they're all noobs so the narrative makes things easier on the brain; less simulationism for them to mull over.

This is why I wonder if it's feasible to run 4E when all the attack powers are bumped into the daily category - and maybe it would be a simple adjustment to do the same for monsters. This allows even a sly flourish to be meaningful. Off the top of my head:
* Rogues would probably wind up backstabbing a bit less often, what with fewer uses of powers that provide movement
* Mages would cast pretty much the same as in the old days (resulting in far less power than they currently have - and driving them to darts and crossbows again )
* Fighter/Paladin challenges can even be limited to daily...

Would this make encounter calculations completely unworkable?

My only interest is playing to the crowd: I want my friends to enjoy the game in order that I get to continue doing what I love, ie, being the Dungeon Master

 

[Ourph]

If it's the players doing the complaining, why aren't they just choosing basic attacks rather than at-wills on their turn? It seems to me that, rather than changing the rules, you could just tell them to pick whatever method of attack makes their playing experience better.

It's obvious that choosing a basic attack is going to be suboptimal to using at-wills (especially for classes like the Wizard, Warlock and some other class builds like non-Str Clerics), but if the players require a rule change before they start doing that, it doesn't seem to me that they are really as put off by the at-will "problem" as you believe they are.

 

[Alex319]

The only problem I can see with that is that it forces players to effectively choose between being as effective as possible in combat and having a good play experience.

It might also cause some cognitive dissonance in regards to the "role-play" aspect - players would want to use at-wills because they can role-play their character's fighting style more creatively, but they also know that in real life, a character whose life is on the line would be using the most effective tactics he knows, as often as he can.

One way of solving this problem might be to make a simple change: say that all basic attacks get a +2 (or so) attack bonus (except for basic attacks granted by things that would only let you do a basic attack, like Commander's Strike and OAs.) That makes a basic attack about as powerful as a standard at-will.

This enables players to use basic attacks if they feel like they can describe things more creatively that way, without reducing their combat effectiveness. It also keeps at-wills as options, increasing the amount of versatility. Finally, it doesn't require rebalancing, because the new option they are being given is about as powerful as the existing options, so the actual power level does not go up that much.

And don't forget about the PHB2 feat "Melee Training" which lets you use your highest stat for melee basic attacks - this might mitigate the problem with wizards having very weak basic attacks. (You could also add an analogous "Ranged Training" feat if desired.)

 

[Ourph]

The only problem I can see with that is that it forces players to effectively choose between being as effective as possible in combat and having a good play experience.

Exactly my point. The players are already choosing to be more effective rather than the option that sunrisekid is hoping will create a better play experience for them. To me, that says whatever gains he thinks will be made by limiting at-will powers to daily use will be offset by the players dissatisfaction with being less effective in combat. Which further indicates that the proposed solution might not be the best way to go.

It might also cause some cognitive dissonance in regards to the "role-play" aspect - players would want to use at-wills because they can role-play their character's fighting style more creatively, but they also know that in real life, a character whose life is on the line would be using the most effective tactics he knows, as often as he can.

This could be the case, which is why I asked sunrisekid for more information about his player's motivations. He's the DM and the only one who actually interacts with the players in question, so I was hoping he could give us some additional information about his player's motivations.

One way of solving this problem might be to make a simple change: say that all basic attacks get a +2 (or so) attack bonus (except for basic attacks granted by things that would only let you do a basic attack, like Commander's Strike and OAs.) That makes a basic attack about as powerful as a standard at-will.

It's still going to lead to a disparity between classes and builds that rely on Str and every other class/build. If your primary stats are Int and Wis, you're not going to benefit from a generalized +2 across the board. Melee training helps with that, but you're still basically requiring all non-Str builds to burn an extra feat compared to Str-based characters just to be effective and as you point out, it doesn't work for ranged attacks, which still leaves the Wizard, Warlock and blaster-Cleric builds kind of hosed.

The solution I've been using to promote variety in combat is one that was proposed by someone else on the boards quite a while ago. In addition to all their other powers, each character gets an Encounter Power called "Awesome Attack". When they use this power, they have to describe a stunt-attack appropriate to their character and the current combat situation which I then use pg. 42 to resolve (usually using the fairly high damage "limited" column). This power recharges once when they are bloodied (so it can be used a max of 2 times per encounter). Having the card in their powers deck reminds them to think about stunt attacks and not just spam their at-wills, but doesn't really require any rebalancing of the rules because it's limited and situational and the rules kind of expect players to be taking advantage of the stunt rules anyway.

 

[sunrisekid]

One way of solving this problem might be to make a simple change: say that all basic attacks get a +2 (or so) attack bonus (except for basic attacks granted by things that would only let you do a basic attack, like Commander's Strike and OAs.) That makes a basic attack about as powerful as a standard at-will.

This sounds prudent. For simplicity sake, staying within the core mechanics will minimize unforseen consequences.

Using this method, the standard powers remain on the character sheet fully useful and ready for when the players feel comfortable trying out more advanced game mechanics.

I'm going to propose this to the players. Thank you very much for the suggestion!

And thanks also to the others