At-will class powers ruining my archetypes

[Cadfan]

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.

That doesn't really follow, actually. Yes, level bonus outstrips stat bonus. This doesn't mean that characters, over time, become more equal in their ability to hit regardless of their original stats. They will be less divergent than in previous editions, but that just means that no one will be worse than they were at level 1. They'll still be just as bad.

In short, if my attack bonus at level 1 is +6 and yours is +4, the absolute difference is 2, and that's what matters. And at level 10 if my attack bonus is +11 and yours is +9, the absolute difference is 2, and that's what matters.

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.

Most experienced min maxers do not feel that a 20 is always the best choice for the majority of characters. An 18 created with a 16 +2 from race is usually superior due to the high cost of buying a natural 18 using a point buy. A 16 is considered slightly less useful, but still viable for many builds, though certainly not optimal.

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.

This really isn't the case. The difference between a 16 and a 20 is going to be nearly the same in either system. You'd have to do some really, really extreme things to the internal math of the game to make that no longer the case. Plus, "good enough" is a relative concept. You can't make a 16 "good enough" for a guy who could get a 20 if he wanted to, because he's got the 20 available as an option.

There are a few changes to the internal math that could counteract this, but they're awfully extreme. Like making a 16 allow you to hit on a 3+ or so.

 

[Mallus]

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.

You're getting bogged down in semantics (again? still?). 4e "basic attacks" should be called something else, say like "secondary attacks, or "conditional attacks".

A character's at-wills are their basic/primary/principle attacks.

 

[Cadfan]

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

Its really not an attack. Its a valid question. There are several things you've argued that I think you would stop arguing if you actually played the system a little bit and felt how it works. Specifically, your conviction that 4e is all about getting a 20 in your attack stat, or an 18 if you can't, and your conviction that abilities like Reaping Strike have somehow made basic attacks obsolete. 20s in your main stat are often bad choices due to the high cost of purchasing them, and attacks like Reaping Strike (and most other at wills) are really just basic attacks with the sorts of minor bonuses that in 3e would have been provided by feats. I think that some experience with the system would cause you to change your mind on these matters.

 

[Obryn]

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

Sure, I get that.

But it's a valid question.

4e is not perfect, and will not meet everyone's gaming needs out of the box (or ever). But before I do any major tinkering in any system, I find it helpful to try it more or less as-is. Then, I have a better feel for the system than I could ever get via armchair analysis. (See: "Monks are horrifically overpowered!")

If you try things out, you can also better-articulate your goal. Once you have a well-articulated goal, you can find better solutions to reach that goal.

I'm absolutely not saying "Try it! You'll love it! It's perfect as-is!" What I am saying is, "Try it before you make major overhauls, because it probably doesn't work during play how it works in your mind."

-O

 

[Sadrik]

They will be less divergent than in previous editions, but that just means that no one will be worse than they were at level 1.

You misunderstood the point. This is not meant to say that the wizard should fight as good as the fighter. This was meant to say that in previous editions this would not have worked but looky it works in 4e.

Most experienced min maxers do not feel that a 20 is always the best choice for the majority of characters. An 18 created with a 16 +2 from race is usually superior due to the high cost of buying a natural 18 using a point buy. A 16 is considered slightly less useful, but still viable for many builds, though certainly not optimal.

I agree, an 18 is good too - what is your point? You are validating what I said, yet feigning disagreement.

This really isn't the case. The difference between a 16 and a 20 is going to be nearly the same in either system. You'd have to do some really, really extreme things to the internal math of the game to make that no longer the case. Plus, "good enough" is a relative concept. You can't make a 16 "good enough" for a guy who could get a 20 if he wanted to, because he's got the 20 available as an option.

Like I said not everyone would be able to ponder the arms race concept. You are right good enough is a relative concept and in fact the point.

 

[Festivus]

In my game, by the third or fourth magic missle into a wall, someone or something is going to come to investigate. Same goes for a clanging axe or hammer attack.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Why would it be important that the basic attacks are useless?

I am kinda guessing where you might come from. It's like a feat that gives you a +3 bonus to hit points, accompanied with a second feat that grants you +1 hit points per level (minimum 3).

But there is a difference - There is a cost involved with picking the +3 hit point feats, and it is the same as for the +3 or more hit point feat. Basic Attacks are free. You don't need to expend anything to get access to them. While if you learn a particular at-will power, that means you don't get to have another one.

Aside from this, basic attacks have a use - they are used for opportunity attacks and charge attacks, and often also triggered by certain powers. (The simplest example might be Commanders Strike). (And everyone would love to have an opportunity attack when the situation comes - it's a free swing at your opponent!)

 

[Sadrik]

Its really not an attack. Its a valid question. There are several things you've argued that I think you would stop arguing if you actually played the system a little bit and felt how it works. Specifically, your conviction that 4e is all about getting a 20 in your attack stat, or an 18 if you can't, and your conviction that abilities like Reaping Strike have somehow made basic attacks obsolete. 20s in your main stat are often bad choices due to the high cost of purchasing them, and attacks like Reaping Strike (and most other at wills) are really just basic attacks with the sorts of minor bonuses that in 3e would have been provided by feats. I think that some experience with the system would cause you to change your mind on these matters.

Sure, I get that.

But it's a valid question.

4e is not perfect, and will not meet everyone's gaming needs out of the box (or ever). But before I do any major tinkering in any system, I find it helpful to try it more or less as-is. Then, I have a better feel for the system than I could ever get via armchair analysis. (See: "Monks are horrifically overpowered!")

If you try things out, you can also better-articulate your goal. Once you have a well-articulated goal, you can find better solutions to reach that goal.

I'm absolutely not saying "Try it! You'll love it! It's perfect as-is!" What I am saying is, "Try it before you make major overhauls, because it probably doesn't work during play how it works in your mind."

-O

If I had never played the game would you find that you could easily dismiss my ideas as coming from some inexperienced loon who simply purports change for changes sake? My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game. You can disagree with me, fine. But this line of argument is insulting.

 

[Cadfan]

You misunderstood the point. This is not meant to say that the wizard should fight as good as the fighter. This was meant to say that in previous editions this would not have worked but looky it works in 4e.

I'm responding to your arguments about half level bonuses outstripping ability score bonuses. That's irrelevant. What matters is the absolute difference between attack bonuses and between attack bonuses and defenses.

A game where one character having a +1 to attack while another character has a +5 to attack is exactly the same as one character having a +1001 to attack while another character has a +1005. Granting both characters a flat +1000 to their attack bonus doesn't make the +1 character any more viable than he was before. Against equal level challenges, they'll still be hitting on the same number as before. If the +1 was viable before, its viable now, if it was unviable before, its unviable now.

What BAB did was make characters with low attacks grow worse over the course of their career in comparison to characters with better BABs. 4e doesn't make you worse as you level up, unless for some reason you can't afford to improve your attack statistic, and even then the difference maxes out at 3 points. But you argued that 4e would somehow make things even out as attack bonus outstrips attack stat. And mathematically that simply isn't true.

 

[Cadfan]

If I had never played the game would you find that you could easily dismiss my ideas as coming from some inexperienced loon who simply purports change for changes sake? My argument stands that at-wills take something from the game. You can disagree with me, fine. But this line of argument is insulting.

Well, then be insulted. You shouldn't be, but I can't stop you.

You're making specific claims. Several of them are carefully linked to the *feel* of various aspects of the game.

If your arguments were purely mathematical or purely based on logic and reason, that would be one thing. But you're also making arguments that are essentially based on the aesthetic experience of the game when played at the table. You are apparently attempting to derive the nature of that aesthetic experience through armchair reasoning. The conclusions you've derived do not mesh with the actual experience of some of the people in this forum.

It is entirely reasonable for them to point out that they literally possess a superior source of information about the game than you possess, and for them to invite you to investigate further before you draw conclusions.

Lets say that you were a nobel prize winning biologist and a master chef, and I brought to you a recipe. You might analyze my recipe, and conclude that it won't taste good. You might base this conclusion on extensive experience in cooking similar dishes. You might base your conclusion on a chemical analysis of the component ingredients and the known chemical interactions between their molecules and human taste buds. But all of this is still not the same as taking a bite of the dish.

The biggest issue that I think you will likely change your mind upon once you try the game out, presuming that opposition hasn't rooted you in your ways, is your belief that martial powers like Reaping Strike don't provide the same aesthetic feel as a basic attack, and your belief that some aesthetic, some feel, some archetype, has been lost by their inclusion as usable at will. Most of these powers boil down to actually being a basic attack, augmented by a minor ability of the sort typically granted by feats in the previous edition. If you didn't feel that Rapid Shot or Two Weapon Fighting created problems in 3e, then the odds are that you won't find that Trin Strike or Dual Strike create problems now. They're close to the same thing as they were before.