Houserule about dailies and utilities. Would this break the game?

[MoonSong]

I'm planning on running a campaign soon using 4e, however the module I'm using was written with a completely different system (and setting) in mind and features very little combat in comparation with other kinds of challenges (lots of intrigue, man-vs-environment and survival). I found a lot of soultions in Dark Sun, however there's still the problem of players not being able to make the choice of having more out of combat resources compared to In-combat resources.

Would the implementation of this rule weaken PC's too much?

Utilitarism:

• At first level a character may choose not to learn an Encounter Attack Power, in exchange that character can learn an Encounter Utility Power of second level from his/her class list or a 2nd level encounter skill power he/she qualiffies for.
• At first level a character may choose not to learn a Daily Attack Power, in exchange that character can learn an Encounter Utility Power or and Encounter Daily power of second level from his/her class list or a 2nd level skill power he/she qualifies for.
• Each time the character would learn a new Encounter Attack Power (except when that Power is replacing a previously known encounter attack power, such as when retraining, Swapping a power, or replacing a known power at Paragon or Epic Tier), he/she can choose to learn an Encounter Utility Power(or an Encounter Skill Power that character qualifies for) of a lower level than the Encounter Attack Power.
• Each time the character would learn a new Daily Attack Power (except when that Power is replacing a previously known encounter attack power, such as when retraining, Swapping a power, or replacing a known power at Paragon or Epic Tier), he/she can choose to learn an Utility Power(or a Skill Power that character qualifies for) of a lower level than the Daily Attack Power.

This basically would mean characters may opt to switch attack powers for Utility Powers but not the other way around. But I'm not sure if it would tottally cripple the party's ability to deal with combat menaces. Any opinions on it?

 

[the Jester]

One major side effect will be to slow combat down, which is already pretty bad in 4e. I don't think I'd do it, just for that reason alone.

 

[Mengu]

As player, I'd be disinclined to pick a utility power instead of an attack power. Encounter/Daily attack powers are just fun. And while it may take some creativity, some of those powers have out of combat uses as well. An Assassin might use Twilight Assassin to create a duplicate and lure some guards away from their post. Numerous summoning powers can be used to retrieve items from dangerous environments.

Rather than mess with the power structure, I'd just hand out more free stuff if you're concerned about their out of combat performance. Just make a free feat progression, including some of the combat tax feats in there so they can use their feats on other campaign needs, something like:

Level 1: Free superior weapon or implement
Level 3: Free Skill Training or Skill Focus
Level 5: Free Expertise or any other feat
Level 7: Free Skill Power
Level 9: Free Improved Defenses or Superior Defense feat

If players are guaranteed the necessities, they are more likely to tweak their characters to fit the needs of the campaign. You could also maybe allow Skill Power to be taken multiple times if it suits your campaign.

 

[fba827]

i would shy away from a rule that takes away combat effectiveness if you're planning on keeping combats in your play style.

you could just simplify it as "at 1st level gain a bonus utility power level 2. at 5th level and every 5 levels, gain another bonus utility power equal to your level of lower"

 

[jbear]

When my table top 4e campaign was running I gave plenty of free stuff over and above the rules and it didn't break the game. But I knew how to hit them hard and could push them right to the edge so it balanced out.

Why worry about utility powers? Why not introduce something like a "Do something Cool" encounter power? I had that houserule in my game and it was awesome for out of combat and in combat improvising. I defined it so that they had to tie their actions either a) to one of their powers eg. freezing burst to freeze over water which could then be walked across etc.
b) to creative use of terrain
c) Creative interaction with the situation
So they didn't need specific out of combat powers. Their imagination was the scope but without being able to pull a unicorn from between the butt cheeks.

If you want more specific powers my suggestion would be to use themes. You could give them the lvl 2 utility power of their theme for free. That's not going to break the game. When they get their level 6 utility power give them another one. or a skill power for free.

Like I said, I gave plenty of freebies to my players and nothing broke. But I usually made those gifts in game rewards (and they were usually tied to very difficult RP decisions that then had in game consequences which the PCs were eventually forced to face).

The only counterpoint (in my opinion) is to really challenge them. Push them harder than you dare and let them figure a way out of it so they are forced to think and be creative or die. Rough, but leads to loads of tension (of the good kind) and fun.

 

[Ferghis]

It depends on your particular gaming group, but players will usually pick good combat options over good non-combat options, simply because you know the good combat option will save you and/or the party, while the utility of any particular non-combat options is always somewhat doubtful. That's why in the next edition they are working on separating out the exploration and social "pillars" from the combat pillar (although it is arguable whether they are doing a good job on that).

My suggestion is to leave the combat stuff alone, and add on the trait system, which adds a bunch of non-combat goodies to the characters: http://hastur.net/wiki/Traits_(4E)