At-will class powers ruining my archetypes

[Obryn]

It doesn't matter if you are martial, arcane, divine, primal, elemental, shadow, ki or whatever other power sources they are going to come up with. Characters are limited by the at-wills that they are tied to at character creation. This makes having characters that do not fit the mold of those at-wills outside of RAW and a limitation of the game system. So no I don't really care if they are martial, martial characters should do their heavy hits less often too, it doesn't matter what power source you are. Why have a special attack at will is not very special. Not to mention when it straight jackets your character creation. When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.

Well the cleric with a bow is just an example. But essentially any character whose at-will powers are better than simply making a character with a sword or whatever weapon the player wants. Not to mention the flash bang of certain at-wills make the game feel a lot more magical as Cadfan illustrated.

And, with these two answers, I think I get the crux of what you're saying.

I don't think you want more options, you want potentially non-optimal options to be more viable. In other words, you want other options. Because what you're proposing - with making everyone resort to basic attacks and focusing on Str/Dex - that's not really more options. It's less options, but options of a type you find more appealing.

I think this confusion is really muddling the issue.

This is another solution. A pretty good one to boot. It would give some more variety to players out of the starting gates. It does nothing for the endless magical effects (or ninja effects for martial) stuff though.

Forgive me if this has been answered - but have you played 4e yet? Or is this mostly armchair speculation?

-O

 

[WalterKovacs]

Even with an increase to starting with 3 encounters, a character will eventually cap out at 6 encounter powers. If the assumption is 12 round encounters, at BEST, you have 50% at-will [a bit less when dailies are used, but rarely would you use more than 1 daily per encounter]. So, at least half the time ... EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME. The only difference is weapon selection, which is limited to: (a) STR or DEX, (b) +2 or +3 prof, (c) 1-H or 2-H. Which weapon you use will be based in part by whether you want to spend a feat to get the "best" weapon, or you just stick with what you have.

Of course, in that system, there are a LOT of weapons that wouldn't get used. Part of the reason to restrict weapon types for certain characters is to encourage archetypes to use those weapons. Few people would actually use a dagger, but it's a solid option for a rogue.

Ultimatly, it would seem to hurt a lot of archetypes if every character was "what weapon do you use half the time?". And, having basic attacks that do LESS than at-wills will only make the encounters longer, making a larger percentage of your attacks into basic weapon based attacks and thus making every character EXACTLY the same, with a few cool things it can do on occaision. The number of spells that wizards and clerics had in 3x allowed them to eventually move away from being weapon wielders if they wanted to (in the case of the cleric, both then, and now, you had the option of being a weapon wielding type or not.) Heck, they introduced feats to allow wizards access to at-will magical powers (reserve feats). They created the warlock with it's eldritch blast. Now, in those cases the touch attacks usually required Dex based attacks, but there were a number of other issues at work (BAB wasn't the same across all classes, touch AC could be a lot lower than actual AC, etc).

Basically, removing at-wills makes more characters with MAD, and limits any "archetypes" to "stuff I do less than half the time in any given fight". Every character is EITHER: STR/DEX based, or forced to be a gish of some type. There are no wizards, only fighters/crossbowmen who occaisionally use magic. No matter what level you get to, unless there is a ridiculous bloat of daily and encounter powers, you will have a significant portion of time spent using a weapon. So, ANY class that has a primary attack stat and secondary stat that doesn't have one of them as STR or DEX, you've completely neutered them. A warlock, for example, can't be CHA/INT or CHA/CON or CON/INT because they'll be completely ineffective half of the battle. Now, you can have EVERY build for EVERY class have STR and/or DEX involved, but then you have an effect on the balance of races, and make all the classes much more similar.

More classes, more at-will choices for those classes, THAT is what gives you more archetypes. Does it really matter if it's a CLERIC wielding a bow, and not a ranger MC'd into cleric to get a few Cleric powers? That person would be using the bow most of the time, and would have a limited number of encounter powers.

In fact, what you'd probably want to do with this: All the non-martial classes are multiclass only. That is sort of what this would look like. Everyone would be something like a warlord, fighter, ranger or rogue. Then there is the wizard who would be a multiclass martial/wizard that starts with less than any martial class gets.

 

[grickherder]

I don't confuse class with archtype. I ran a doppleganger thief in a game last year. She wasn't a Rogue or even multiclassed as Rogue, but was effective at being sneaky and manipulative.

You want an archtype that is good at something the obvious class isn't? Pick a different class and have your character call himself whatever you want. I've found it pretty effective for mixing things up a bit.

This is actually a very useful an cool thing to do. A player in a game I ran wanted to be an arcane striker but didn't want to be a warlock. So he made an eladrin rogue and reskinned it as a wizard. All of his attacks were described as magical. A friend of mine out west had a player in his group who did the same thing but as a stage magician-- he was actually a rogue but pretended to be a powerful wizard.

If I were to make an archer cleric, I'd either go with cleric and dump stat strength and take dex instead and then multiclass into ranger. Or start as a ranger and multiclass into cleric (dump statting strength in favour of wisdom). It would depend on whether I wanted to emphasize cleric powers or not.

If I wanted to remake the old basic d&d elf-- half fighter, half wizard, I'd likely go with a rogue multiclassed into warlock (or sorcerer depending on what that feat ends up giving you). The lighter armour of the rogue fits the archetype. The damage output is more in line with old school fighters being the high damage dealers rather than defenders. I might even take a Half Elf-- call it and elf-- and use the extra at will as an encounter power to add more magic off the hop.

 

[FireLance]

I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.

In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.

Similarly, if there are flavor issues with the current at-will abilities, it may be possible to introduce new at-will abilities with the proper flavor: fighter at-wills that simply deal more damage instead of having additional effects, or wizard at-wills that allow the character to use Intelligence with a weapon attack.

 

[The Human Target]

When I look at a class that I want to play in 4e I look first to its at-wills and class features and determine how I can maximize the effects of those. If one of them says you have to use a certain weapon or cannot use a certain weapon those are undue character creation rules that I don't prefer. You may prefer those limitation, I like options.

This I just don't understand

Okay, out of all the at-wills in the game these are the ones who are affected by weapon selection....


Fighter

Brash Strike (gain a bonus with certain weapons)
Reaping Strike (gain Bonus with two-handed weapon)
Dual Strike (must use two weapons)
Tide of Iron (must use a shield)

Ranger

Twin Strike (must use ranged weapon or two weapons)
Careful Attack (must use ranged weapon or two weapons)

Rogue

Piercing Strike (must use light blade)
Riposte Strike (must use light blade)
Deft Strike (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)
Sly Slourish (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)
Disheartening Strike (must use crossbow, light blade, or sling)

The ranger has two whole at-wills that have a requirement that he use two weapons, which is the rangers melee shtick in 4E.

The fighter has one power that actually give you a benefit for using specific weapons, Brash Strike. Those weapons are the ax, hammer, and mace weapon groups. Which for the fighter basically only rules out heavy blades or more rarely polearms. Its a power designed to give axe, hammer, and mace fighters a big boost due to their innate weaknesses prior to Martial power. And it fits thematically with the barbarian-ish style of Invigorating Fighters. The fighter has a power that makes it much more useful if you use a two handed weapon of any kind. And then the class has a power requiring two weapons and a power requiring a shield. Which means that the final three don't limit you in weapon selection, but give you advantages in fighting style.

And then we have the rogue. All of whose at wills (and powers in total) have weapon restrictions. Because the rogue has the most potent one target damage dealing powers in the entire game. And it would be hugely unbalancing for them to get to use their powers with a bastard sword or an executioner's axe. So they have restrictions for overall game balance reasons.

So some of the ranger at-wills restrictions help define the rangers combat techniques. The rogue's at-wills restrictions give the class balance. And the fighter's at-wills actually give the fighter a reason to pick from a wide variety of weapons.

Yeesh.

I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.

In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.

Similarly, if there are flavor issues with the current at-will abilities, it may be possible to introduce new at-will abilities with the proper flavor: fighter at-wills that simply deal more damage instead of having additional effects, or wizard at-wills that allow the character to use Intelligence with a weapon attack.

Now these idea I can get behind.

 

[Sadrik]

Even with an increase to starting with 3 encounters, a character will eventually cap out at 6 encounter powers. If the assumption is 12 round encounters, at BEST, you have 50% at-will [a bit less when dailies are used, but rarely would you use more than 1 daily per encounter]. So, at least half the time ... EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME. The only difference is weapon selection, which is limited to: (a) STR or DEX, (b) +2 or +3 prof, (c) 1-H or 2-H. Which weapon you use will be based in part by whether you want to spend a feat to get the "best" weapon, or you just stick with what you have.

Let me first say, excellent analysis.

Yes but also by that level (30) you should have some magic items that would fill in the other 12 rounds of combat. Not to mention your daily powers. I agree, the advantage of 4e, "EVERY CLASS ATTACKS THE SAME" and this is how this system will work. As you go up in level your level bonus will out-weigh your stat bonus (in most cases). The characters will be much more potent with a weapon than in previous editions. This really starts to separate around paragon tier when the level bonus begins to outstrip the stat bonus.

If the we had BAB like in previous editions I don't think an idea like this would have worked.

Ultimatly, it would seem to hurt a lot of archetypes if every character was "what weapon do you use half the time?". And, having basic attacks that do LESS than at-wills will only make the encounters longer, making a larger percentage of your attacks into basic weapon based attacks and thus making every character EXACTLY the same, with a few cool things it can do on occaision.

Yes and no, I agree that it could take a combat more rounds to complete... well maybe, remember you now begin with 3 encounter powers. So if those blast off in the first few rounds you could be left with just the scraps, it could make combats fewer rounds it depends... But in general if the fight gets past the encounter powers initial push it could drag on.

The number of spells that wizards and clerics had in 3x allowed them to eventually move away from being weapon wielders if they wanted to (in the case of the cleric, both then, and now, you had the option of being a weapon wielding type or not.) Heck, they introduced feats to allow wizards access to at-will magical powers (reserve feats). They created the warlock with it's eldritch blast. Now, in those cases the touch attacks usually required Dex based attacks, but there were a number of other issues at work (BAB wasn't the same across all classes, touch AC could be a lot lower than actual AC, etc).

I like the concept of reserve feats and if you go here you can see a discussion about them and this "no at-wills idea".

Basically the idea is use reserve feats to give extra uses of a 1st level at-will power during an encounter.

Basically, removing at-wills makes more characters with MAD, and limits any "archetypes" to "stuff I do less than half the time in any given fight". Every character is EITHER: STR/DEX based, or forced to be a gish of some type. There are no wizards, only fighters/crossbowmen who occaisionally use magic. No matter what level you get to, unless there is a ridiculous bloat of daily and encounter powers, you will have a significant portion of time spent using a weapon. So, ANY class that has a primary attack stat and secondary stat that doesn't have one of them as STR or DEX, you've completely neutered them. A warlock, for example, can't be CHA/INT or CHA/CON or CON/INT because they'll be completely ineffective half of the battle. Now, you can have EVERY build for EVERY class have STR and/or DEX involved, but then you have an effect on the balance of races, and make all the classes much more similar.

I agree it does cause a bit of MAD. Here is an interesting thing though. 4e is all about maximizing your one stat 20 nearly all the time if you have to go 18. If you introduce MAD, this may be a little difficult for some to ponder, you actually lower the arms race for everyone including those that have to focus solely on a single stat. If a 16 is good enough for one character it can be good enough for another - including the fighter who only really has to focus on a single stat. I am not saying that every fighter will be made like this but they could be made like this. In this case MAD, may actually may be good for 4e.

 

[Sadrik]

I do agree with one of Sadrik's points. I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat. One house rule that I've seen proposed to fix this is for a character's attack stat to affect the damage modifier only, while the attack bonus would receive a flat modifier of +4 or +5, as if the character had an 18 or 20 in the ability score. However, beyond that, I would like to see more benefits for say, fighters with a high Intelligence, or rogues with a high Wisdom.

Yes 100% agreement here. And that is an interesting solution.

In addition, while I agree with the point that the current suite of at-will abilities makes certain character concepts less viable, I think the solution is to have more at-will abilities. A cleric at-will ability that uses the bow would then be the defining characteristic of a cleric of a god of archery or hunting. It probably would not be too difficult to come up with a thematically appropriate at-will ability for each god.

This is a good idea and has merit but it seems a lot more difficult than simply removing all at wills and converting them to bonus 1st level encounter powers (basically converting them as is to the 21st level power level). Wala, done.

 

[Sadrik]

Okay, out of all the at-wills in the game these are the ones who are affected by weapon selection....

I think you grasped only part of the point. At-will powers that are better than using a basic attack make using a basic attack useless which in turn makes certain options blatantly sub-par. This is obvious. However, you seem to think the point was only at-wills that require a specific weapon cannot be used with a different type of weapon. A valid point but again only part of the point.

Excellent analysis btw.

 

[Sadrik]

Forgive me if this has been answered - but have you played 4e yet? Or is this mostly armchair speculation?

This is a good example of the types of at-will attacks that I would like to remove.

 

[Mallus]

I think that 4e currently over-rewards specialization in your primary attack stat.

Why is this a bad thing? D&D has always featured strong fighters, smart wizards, agile rogues (except when they were called thieves), etc. 4e's rather elegant mechanics that tie a class's traditional primary stat directly to combat performance --by making it determine both to-hit and damage bonus-- is, well, rather elegant.

What are the benefits of messing with this?