D&D 4E 4E with less powers

[Alex319]

The idea was actually to beef up the basic attacks so they are about the same as the at-wills, this making players who want to ue them as primary attacks not gimped.

You probably want to call it a separate "at-will" though rather than modify the basic attacks directly, because if you modify basic attacks you also beef up lots of other stuff, like AOs and Commander's Strike, that there's no particular reason to beef up.

 

[Garthanos]

The idea was actually to beef up the basic attacks so they are about the same as the at-wills, this making players who want to ue them as primary attacks not gimped.

You probably want to call it a separate "at-will" though rather than modify the basic attacks directly, because if you modify basic attacks you also beef up lots of other stuff, like AOs and Commander's Strike, that there's no particular reason to beef up.

At a static +2 you gain not much but once you start defining the "meaning" of that +2 functionally? you either loose the original complaining folks by defining it too well or just refer back to page 42 and convincing players they do indeed have permission to reflavor "at-will" ;-).

That post about reflavoring the wizards at wills has inspired my imagination

Now note some of those descriptions are very "conditional"

That conditionality is I think meat for the people who want 'improvisation'.
​

They show that your description of how you achieve the effect can be
well situationally suited... a scorching burst being described as transmuting rain that is already coming down in to fire "this time".... somebody asks the wizard afterward and he says "sure I can do it" and shows them a cantrip where he heats his drink by making its top layer burn with a snap and says most of the time its just not that useful in battle. He has many other ways of creating a scorching burst... one includes tossing an acorn and freeing its inner flame he can do the same with an egg or similar but it smells bad or calling up volcanic spurts when the enemy is on appropriate rocky ground... or conjuring that cantankerous fire serpent (but never in the rain it would attack me then of course).

The flavor text can have built in "reasons" for why you don't spam with them it doesn't have to be that restrictive or mechanical. Sorry I had to use your breakfast but how many acorns do you expect me to carry? Sure I can make the snake stick around a few rounds but they do get annoyed If I make him (by pulling it back in next round slips back to the elemental plane). I like to portal in a a burst of fire from when there was a forest fire in this location but some places it is just well too far back..

 

[Nytmare]

I don't know, when I read what GameOgre was saying, Gargoyle's #2 is closest to what I'm hearing. It's probably the most common complaint I run into off the boards and it's a combination of people assuming that every class has what appear to be a bunch of magic spells and the idea that the ONLY things you're allowed to do are what those spells let you do.

What I see is less "we want to be able to describe the action the way we want to describe the action" and more "all these weird maneuvers aren't what we're used to and are not what we want."

GameOgre?

 

[Alex319]

At a static +2 you gain not much but once you start defining the "meaning" of that +2 functionally? you either loose the original complaining folks by defining it too well or just refer back to page 42 and convincing players they do indeed have permission to reflavor "at-will" ;-)

I'm not sure what your point is here. The "meaning of the +2 functionally" is that you get a +2 to your attack roll. The sole purpose of this rule is to beef up basic attacks to (approximately) the same power level as an at-will.

One way to think of this is that an at-will is just a basic attack, with a "little extra." Most of the "little extras", like a free shift, forced movement, cleave etc. do restrict your ability to describe the action because you have to describe it in a way consistent with the given effect. But a +2 attack roll as a "little extra" doesn't restrict you that way, because it doesn't change the effect of the power at all, just makes it a little more likely to hit.

 

[Garthanos]

What I see is less "we want to be able to describe the action the way we want to describe the action" and more "all these weird maneuvers aren't what we're used to and are not what we want."

GameOgre?

You sound like you are being more negative
Re-read this

"It seems to me they just dislike picking attacks and moves off a list. Both have told me its *much* more limiting to them to have to pick off a list.

So I figure... they dont want limited ways to visualize there attacks.

Realizing that list is as big as their imagination wants to make it but with a smaller number of mechanical effects which simulate it... is a big fix... some of those mechanical effects are on page 42 and some are in there at wills.

Sigh I guess the original poster admitted that all his players did
in previous versions was say I attack right? so maybe you are right they don't really want to imagine the action they just want
to spam with some simplistic non-option and pretend they are pretending.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The "meaning of the +2 functionally" is that you get a +2 to your attack roll. The sole purpose of this rule is to beef up basic attacks to (approximately) the same power level as an at-will.

One way to think of this is that an at-will is just a basic attack, with a "little extra." Most of the "little extras", like a free shift, forced movement, cleave etc. do restrict your ability to describe the action because you have to describe it in a way consistent with the given effect.

I have been re-skinning the basic fighter attack since 1e and the new at-wills let the characters attacks be far more interesting.

Reskinnning a cleave attack for example

• It can indeed be your broad sweeping attack slicing through or past the target and into his friend
• It can be smashing a shoulder/kicking into one guy as you slash his ally.(its a combined move missing one throws off your timing on the other so one roll works fine)
• It could be literally smashing into one enemy causing him to bounce back off the other damaging him.
• It can be a splash of the lantern oil flying from the lantern in the hand of the guy you hit to harm his ally.
• It could be the preparatory strike that assured your attack (by making him think you were distracted or not really targeting him) against his ally was a not quite feint and actually connected against that ally (doing the strength damage).
• Or that bluffed attack just forced them to take a step too close to the camp fire... not far enough for a lot of damage just some.
• Or perhaps your attack against one interrupted that enemies attack so that it was his spear haft which harmed his ally. (note your enemies are making multiple moves during there turn you didn't fully deprive him of an attack opportunity this just represents one of the elements of defensive action and acknowleges attacks are a part of it)
• Or I accidentally hit an enemy during the preparation to hit the other my backswing was too liberal but I managed to not let it throw off my attack. (kind of an interesting lucky visualization for a halfling doing a cleave)

In other words how many ways can you damage an adjacent enemy during a battle while attacking more completely/targeting another? I don't feel restricted...

But a +2 attack roll as a "little extra" doesn't restrict you that way, because it doesn't change the effect of the power at all, just makes it a little more likely to hit.

You can describe this house rule very simply as "Use the DM's best friend" liberally. ( If they describe their attacks in strategic, adaptive, interesting, situationally appropriate ways always give them a +2 or allow them to induce CA or lesser a -2 on their adversaries AC or something similar)

I do think if the player says .. "I attack him with my sword..." they get what they deserve no +2 on their attack no nothing just a basic attack. If they play boring well they will get all the benefits of boring... hell I want their cleaves described interestingly and I encourage it too... you can get a bonus on top of an "at-will' (that lantern splash description would be fire damage and might make ongoing)

Even without the game encouraging miniatures we always described and visualized characters positions and there effect on the game play, we marked them with X's and O's on a piece of paper yes I was in high school football ;-)

 

[Sadrik]

The idea was actually to beef up the basic attacks so they are about the same as the at-wills, this making players who want to ue them as primary attacks not gimped.

You probably want to call it a separate "at-will" though rather than modify the basic attacks directly, because if you modify basic attacks you also beef up lots of other stuff, like AOs and Commander's Strike, that there's no particular reason to beef up.

Fair enough,

Combat Strike
"I Attack"
At-Will Weapon
Attack Primary Ability+2 Vs. AC
Hit: [W]+Primary Ability
21st 2[W]+Primary Ability

I really like this. Presented in this way, the game is fixed on multiple levels. It fixes the "to- hit bonus problem", it fixes the "I am not attacking with my uni-bloated stat that the game system assumes" and for me it easily allows me to convert the at-wills into bonus encounter powers without losing any game assumed math.

I may also add the following power with a feat to give the arcane guys an attack so they will not have to revert to their crossbow or a thrown dagger.

Arcane Attack
"I Zap/Zot/Bolt"
(Arcane only)
At-Will Implement
Range: 10
Attack Primary Ability+2 Vs. AC
Hit: 1d8+Primary Ability
21st 2d8+Primary Ability

 

[Garthanos]

Fair enough,

Combat Strike
"I Attack"
At-Will Weapon
Attack Primary Ability+2 Vs. AC
Hit: [W]+Primary Ability
21st 2[W]+Primary Ability

I really like this. Presented in this way, the game is fixed on multiple levels. It fixes the "to- hit bonus problem", it fixes the "I am not attacking with my uni-bloated stat that the game system assumes" and for me it easily allows me to convert the at-wills into bonus encounter powers without losing any game assumed math.

I may also add the following power with a feat to give the arcane guys an attack so they will not have to revert to their crossbow or a thrown dagger.

Arcane Attack
"I Zap/Zot/Bolt"
(Arcane only)
At-Will Implement
Range: 10
Attack Primary Ability+2 Vs. AC
Hit: 1d8+Primary Ability
21st 2d8+Primary Ability

Shouldn't those be d6 and 2d6? shrug.

Those names are close to perfect because if you called it
focused strike and aimed shot for the ranged one
and careful bolt of power the mage types well....
then you have just given them another power on
that small list and not the freedom cause they don't
want POWERZ because describing it "magically" kills
their what is that word again?

Oh yeah "imagination" the word just doesnt seem
like it fits alongside "I attack it with my sword"

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

I advise the mini's, they make IT much easier and funner- you can use coins or other things to represent your character like chess pieces... e.g. rook=defender

tell them to look at the powers, take what it does, and get them to build flavor text around it, somethings you can easily tell aren't magical eg

Unstoppable
Fighter Utility 2
You let your adrenaline surge carry you through the battle.
Daily ✦ Healing, Martial
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You gain temporary hit points equal to 2d6 + your
Constitution modifier.

I mean look at the flavor text

 

[Sadrik]

Shouldn't those be d6 and 2d6? shrug.

Mages are already gimped and having it be 1d8 makes it comparable to a crossbow or shortbow. The only thing I forgot to add was a proficiency bonus so the power would be:

Arcane Attack
"I Zap/Zot/Bolt"
(Arcane only)
At-Will Implement
Range: 10
Attack Primary Ability+4 Vs. AC
Hit: 1d8+Primary Ability
21st 2d8+Primary Ability

By the way, I don't want this usable by divine classes. Note these would only be useful under my conversion of the current at-will powers to encounter powers.

It might also be kind of neat to differentiate these by tying them to an implement or an energy source or both.

Wand attack (Magic Missile), staff attack (? - possibly a touch attack), rod attack (Eldritch Blast), orb attack (? - got to be a thrown energy orb grenade), pact blade (? - stab attack), tome (? - have no idea), in this way you get the benefit of an at-will.