At-will class powers ruining my archetypes

[Mallus]

Ah but I think the core mechanics of 4e ar better than 3e.

It's a little hard to tell that from the changes you're looking to make to them.

 

[Caliban]

Precisely the kind of narrow focus I would like to remove. Thank you, you illustrated this well. Really this boils down to flavor, in previous editions this was a "feel" of the game and the at-wills have shifted that "feel". You may prefer that new "feel", I personally don't not prefer that "feel" I just would like the game to give me that "feel" if I want it. By removing at-will powers I think I get there.

And as far as all classes having to buy STR and DEX at character creation. This is just ridiculous. Every wizard or warlock would not buy STR and DEX. Give me a break. The wizard would likely buy some DEX and not dump it to 8 like it currently gets done in most cases. Instead they grab a 14 or so and throw some daggers in combat or something at low-level, and as they level up and get more encounter powers and daily powers they do the dagger thing less and less.

Also there seems to be some confusion about what these two bonus encounter powers are. They are exactly that two bonus encounter powers not at-will powers treated as encounter powers.

I have some ideas on how to convert all the current at-will powers into encounter powers, namely, give them the 21st level damage bonus and be done with it. I think twin strike is the only one that would have to be deleted or modified.

The question isn't really what we on this board think of your system. It's pretty clear that most of us think we wouldn't enjoy it, but that's really beside the point.

You have a vision of how you want the game world to "feel" and you want to change the mechanics of the game to better suit your vision.

The real question is: who is going to be playing your game and do they share your vision? Do you have any prospective players, and have you asked them how they feel about such wholesale changes to the rules?

 

[Sadrik]

As I understand it, you would rather that characters used more encounter & daily powers, and would give more of them to suit that purpose. As a trade-off, all characters would lose their At-Will abilities and instead just use Basic Attacks when Encounters and maybe Dailies are gone.

That's the crux of it, yup, with the added benefit of a couple more encounter powers.

So, let's look at games that basically work that way, see why they work, and see if the situation is comparable in 4e.

3e is a great example, IMHO. Simplified: Your fighters/rangers/paladins basically fight the whole time. Your wizards will cast some very impressive blammies, and maybe plunk with a crossbow when they're done. Your Fighters will max out their Strength, likely boosting it more than anything else. Your Wizards will max out their Intelligence, since it's huge for them.

This works for 3e, and for prior editions as well. What makes this work, imho, is that the wizard's blammies are far more impressive than any normal attack from a fighter/ranger/paladin/etc. They can do things fighters just can't, and often their spells have rider effects that could be very impressive. What's more, they often deal a lot of damage to a lot of characters.

That is very accurate by my estimation.

Now, let's look at 4e and see if the situation is comparable.

Right off the bat, imho, we have problems. Wizards' blammies are not significantly more effective than anyone else's. In fact, while everyone's powers do different things, they are fairly even, potency-wise. A Level 7 Encounter power will have similar potency from a Fighter or from a Wizard.

Ah but they do effect an area and one of the things that a "controler" is supposed to do is affect more area and so, by that they become more powerful - even though the damage is comparable.

Both Fighters and Wizards will have, of course, maxed out their bread & butter stats. This isn't 4e-specific; it just happens in every edition. When a Fighter's powers run out, they're still using their prime stats and have only slightly dropped in effectiveness.

I also agree, wizards will be less effective with a bow and a sword than a fighter. This is how it should be by the way. Conceptually I don't think that magical powers should be as at-will as regular sword swings or bow shots.

When a Wizard's powers run out, they are basically done. Unless, that is, the Wizard has decided to seriously boost their Dexterity for missile attacks. They can do this, of course, but it's not as helpful as most other stats. It won't help their defenses, and really they're probably better off getting a few more HPs, taking a hit on their basic attacks, and hoping the bad guys die before they need to pull out the crossbow. On the other hand, Fighters are still using Strength, so there aren't any MAD issues.

A wizard can be pretty good with their staff in the game. They just need to have a 12 to 14 strength and that will make them -2 to -3 to hit from where a fighter might be with a staff. Will they be less effective than the fighter still in a fight? Hell yes, but that is not the point.

So that's why I think this solution, as you've written it, won't work well. It takes a lot away from casters, while taking very little away from weapon-users. And casters don't get anything back from this; they're sizably nerfed.

I agree it makes the:
Warlocks, Wizards, Lazer Clerics and Charisma Paladins them arguably worse.

Honestly I think that really it only makes the Warlock and Wizard worse because the cleric and paladin both have strength powers that they can easily take so they are already spending stat points in those areas anyway!

The Wizard has a lot of area of effect powers that can do a lot of damage to a lot of guys, this makes them pretty powerful anyway. So if they specialize in INT only they can be pretty effective at their relatively few encounter and daily powers. They could possible use a boost in damage though, I don't know for sure.

The warlock is a different beast all together, they have a curse ability and it works with basic attacks so they are still very viable and interesting strikers. In fact I think they become MORE interesting without the auto eldritch blast.

I think I would also add some "reserve" feats that allow multiple uses of a power during the combat, eldritch blast would be a perfect fit for that feat. I was thinking of using the limitation of the healing word ability (2 times for levels 1-15 and 3 times for levels 16-30).

 

[Sadrik]

It's a little hard to tell that from the changes you're looking to make to them.

At-wills are not a core mechanic they are a sub-system thrown on to the core mechanics.

 

[Sadrik]

* Consider a class ability (or at least a feat) that allows rogues to make basic attacks with the rogue weapon list using DEX for melee. (akin to weapon finesse). Otherwise, you're effectively swapping STR with DEX for primes, limiting rogues to archers (well, crossbowmen, since they can't use bows with their powers) or making brutal scoundrels THE ONLY class ability worth taking (goodbye artful dodgers).

This is a good idea. Possibly off-hand melee weapons can be included in the light thrown weapons bracket and be used with DEX instead of STR or interchangeably with either.

* Consider making Twin Strike a power any class can use when fighting with two weapons (replacing the current TWF benefit with it; two attacks, not bonus to damage). This will keep rangers as twf people and open it back to fighters, rogues, warlords, and such.

This is also a good idea, in this way you don't remove the ability of the ranger to make two attacks "at-will". You also make fighters who want to fight with two weapons more powerful and so on. There is a hitch though should everyone basically get "rapid-shot"? Not sure about that one. It may be too big of a change.

*Figure out what you're doing with Intelligent Blademaster and Swordmages (Swordmage only: use Int for basic attacks) or you've just made the best fighter in the game.

I don't have the FR book and am not too familiar in with the swordmage or that feat (it is also not available in our game for use). What I gather though is that there is a feat that allows you to use your INT bonus for your basic attacks. This feat would have to be dropped, it might be too advantageous.

* Keep Eldrich Blast as an at-will power. Warlocks in 3.5 could use it all day, so should 4e ones. We're keeping the theme of previous editions and not limiting archetypes, right?

Did you notice it is actually a class feature? This could be doable, it is the only at-will attack power that is actually cited as a class feature. Perhaps it is an artifact from an iteration where classes did not have at-will powers. Before the "siloing".

 

[Sadrik]

This is bad game design. The players would rebel against it.

No one likes investing character resources in something that only matters for a few levels, and then stops being important, especially when those resources can't be regained, and trade off with resources that will be useful forever, and more and more as you level up.

I don't know what to tell you except that countless video games have made this error, and players always find a way around it. The quickest solution for most people will simply be to start playing at a higher level, and bypass the whole matter.

Good point, so the wizard has the choice of being good with their Powers or good with their basic attacks, at low levels it is a tough choice but the way around it is that they choose the powers knowing that they will be weak early on anyway and hopefully be better later on.

The wizard is by far the worst hit class with these changes as I illustrated a few posts back. Wizards are already kind of sub par anyway. Possibly upping their damage by a die on every power might give them more a "boom" that makes them worthwhile. Still though, when I am a player I generally play wizards and I still would under these rules even without the "boom" damage bonus. So it just depends on why the player plays. Have the most powerful character? Don't play a wizard then.

 

[Obryn]

I agree it makes the:
Warlocks, Wizards, Lazer Clerics and Charisma Paladins them arguably worse.

Honestly I think that really it only makes the Warlock and Wizard worse because the cleric and paladin both have strength powers that they can easily take so they are already spending stat points in those areas anyway!

Well, that's kind of the point... If you're making half the classes worse, and making it so half the builds of existing classes are pointless, well... Why play those classes? A group of fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords will be more potent than a mixed group.

And as for concentrating in a single stat, which was one of your concerns... Str/Dex classes would continue to be able to buff up their main stats without restraint. It's everyone else who gets a dose of MAD.

The Wizard has a lot of area of effect powers that can do a lot of damage to a lot of guys, this makes them pretty powerful anyway. So if they specialize in INT only they can be pretty effective at their relatively few encounter and daily powers. They could possible use a boost in damage though, I don't know for sure.

I think you'd find that the Wizard is probably the least-powerful character class right now. Those bursts & blasts can just as easily hurt enemies as friends, and overall their damage output is sub-par. What's more, although they do have area effects, those area effects generally do less damage to each creature than single-target effects. You're nerfing an already-weak class.

So yeah. Basically, if you have no problems making the existing caster classes significantly underpowered (until the Sorceror comes out, whose spells use Strength and Dex), and more or less making them second-fiddle to the frontline, go ahead. It's your game. It's not a game I'd ever play in - especially not as anything other than a fighter - but you seem pretty convinced this is a brilliant system, and I don't think I can dissuade you.

-O

 

[Mallus]

Wizards are already kind of sub par anyway. Possibly upping their damage by a die on every power might give them more a "boom" that makes them worthwhile.

You'd need to make wizard's encounter/daily powers a lot more powerful than the martial class's counterparts. Which is using 4e to recreate 3e/2e/1e. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So it just depends on why the player plays. Have the most powerful character? Don't play a wizard then.

And the benefit of creating deliberately unbalanced classes is?

edit: maybe you're looking for something like a mash-up between 4e and 3.5e's Book of Nine Swords? Characters would have no at-wills but more and broader encounter powers.

 

[Sadrik]

Well, that's kind of the point... If you're making half the classes worse, and making it so half the builds of existing classes are pointless, well... Why play those classes? A group of fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords will be more potent than a mixed group.

Well lets be clear, clerics and paladins are still very viable and are only slightly affected, I see no reason why you could not do a 14 or 16 STR and 18 WIS for a cleric and an 14 or 16 STR and an 18 CHA for a Paladin. Or vice verse on those stats. These are still very viable.

Quite honestly from a design perspective, I really don't care for the design on the classes that have two primaries and one secondary (cleric, paladin, ranger and warlock). It is almost like they have placed two classes into one class. But that is neither here nor there.

Back to the point Wizards and warlock are both the heaviest hit by removing at-wills. Warlocks less so than wizards.

And as for concentrating in a single stat, which was one of your concerns... Str/Dex classes would continue to be able to buff up their main stats without restraint. It's everyone else who gets a dose of MAD.

Luckily in 4e you can bump up 2 or all of your stats. So this is not that bad because you can bump up what you need. A very nice core feature of 4e.

I think you'd find that the Wizard is probably the least-powerful character class right now. Those bursts & blasts can just as easily hurt enemies as friends, and overall their damage output is sub-par. What's more, although they do have area effects, those area effects generally do less damage to each creature than single-target effects. You're nerfing an already-weak class.

This does concern me some but the added boom of more encounter powers at their disposal may be what the doctor ordered. It may not be enough. If not I only have to up an already weak class, that I have been thinking of boosting anyway.

(until the Sorceror comes out, whose spells use Strength and Dex),

WTF are you BSing me?

 

[Sadrik]

edit: maybe you're looking for something like a mash-up between 4e and 3.5e's Book of Nine Swords? Characters would have no at-wills but more and broader encounter powers.

Absolutely, I mentioned a couple pages back that Bo9S and later development cycles were moving 3e into a more encounter based system from the day based systems. I really like that design. [SARCASM]And hey when you used Bo9S, martial characters truly were more powerful than casters.[/SARCASM]

I would also like to get rid of daily powers and make them encounter powers for a number of reasons. This one is more difficult to adjust though.