D&D 4E Simple 4e newbie question

[raindog308]

I'm looking at page 200 of the 4e DMG. There's a stat block for "Barstomun Strongbeard," a dwarf.

He has a standard at-will attack of a Fist Pummel (+7 vs AC, 1d6+4 dam).
He also has a minor at-will attack of Quick Punch (+7 vs AC, 1d6+4 dam).

Both are melee attacks (little sword icon). The Fist Pummel icon is circled, which means that's the attack he'd use as an attack of opportunity. The Quick Punch is not circled.

So far so good but...why are these two listed separately when they're exactly the same attack? +7 vs AC and 1d6+4 damage.

Why would Barstomun ever do a single standard action instead of trading it for two minor attacks?

Is there a reason they didn't simply mark the Quick Punch as his circled melee attack for attack of opportunity?

I suppose saying it's a Fist Pummel vs. a Quick Punch might add a little color, though I would trust the DM's storytelling for color rather than power names.

 

[supersaiyandoyle]

Imagine there is an ability that prevents the use of a standard action. That would make this attack ideal over the other.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yeah... his profile doesn't make a lot of sense, for the reasons you've given.

That said, he would use the standard attack one for anything that required a melee basic attack (that's what the circle means), which would be opportunity attacks (as mentioned) and charges.

Other than that, there is no reason not to use the minor attack one - as he could use it up to 3 times a turn.

That said, he's the only monster I've seen where WotC has bothered differenting a melee attack and a melee basic attack where (other than action type) the two have been identical. I haven't gone looking though.

His damage per attack (7.5 average) is rather low for a lvl. 4 brute (15 average by MM3 standards), so his damage is just right if he's taking 2 attacks per turn, and too high if he's doing three. Personally, for this reason I would restrict the minor attack one to 1x per round... unless you want to force the party to keep him moving about.

I would be just as inclined not to use him, though... he's not a very interesting baddy, mechanically.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Minor action attack doesn't have any kind of a qualifier or requirement on it?

I have a feeling minor action attacks are only supposed to be 1/round. I'm not sure why I have that feeling, but as has been said, it'd be a good idea to restrict it that way, even if there's no technical justification anywhere...

 

[blalien]

The Minor action attack doesn't have any kind of a qualifier or requirement on it?

I have a feeling minor action attacks are only supposed to be 1/round. I'm not sure why I have that feeling, but as has been said, it'd be a good idea to restrict it that way, even if there's no technical justification anywhere...

No qualifier. It's really written like that. Except for a few obscure situations, there is no reason why they couldn't just make the basic attack a minor action. It might have been an oversight.

That's not an official rule, although most minor action powers that can be used more than once say they can only be used once per turn.

 

[DracoSuave]

No qualifier. It's really written like that. Except for a few obscure situations, there is no reason why they couldn't just make the basic attack a minor action. It might have been an oversight.

That's not an official rule, although most minor action powers that can be used more than once say they can only be used once per turn.

In terms of rules constructs, there's no reason why the minor attack could not have been written up as the basic attack for that creature.

However, there's more to these things than 'what works within the rules.' That's not good enough. You also have to be able to make the idea behind the monster grokkable. If they made the minor action into its basic, some readers might not notice the 'Minor action' part and just assume it's a monster with a below damage ability not worth thinking about.

However, by putting a second, identical attack beside it, people take a closer look. 'How is this different? Oh, it's a minor action... OH this monster has a minor action attack! I get it! He attacks often, not hard!'

It's a grokkability issue, rather than a rules-compliance issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMC if I ever used him he'd do a standard and a minor as his two attacks. One with the left one with the right. (Or possibly two minors and a standard; there's no point trading the standard down to one minor - you can't swap it for two). But he looks too dull to use. (And I like the new statblocks where the class of action becomes obvious).

 

[Spatula]

Why would Barstomun ever do a single standard action instead of trading it for two minor attacks?

Well, he wouldn't because you can't do that. He could trade one standard for one minor, or one move for one minor. As for why he has two attacks that do the same thing but require different actions, perhaps it's just tradition. Basic melee attacks are (almost?) always standard action attacks, appearing at the top of the attacks list for easy finding.

 

[raindog308]

Well, he wouldn't because you can't do that. He could trade one standard for one minor, or one move for one minor. As for why he has two attacks that do the same thing but require different actions, perhaps it's just tradition. Basic melee attacks are (almost?) always standard action attacks, appearing at the top of the attacks list for easy finding.

Perhaps I wasn't clear what I meant. I'm looking at p268 of the PHB and it says (under "Substituting Actions") that you can take three minor actions in one turn. So he could make three Quick Punch attacks, since they're minor at-will, right?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yes... so long as he doesn't want to move or perform so other action such as drawing a potion, closing a door, etc.