I'n a little concerned...

[Flobby]

Also I assume that you get more at-will powers to choose from as you advance.
I really don't see why it would be worrisome in the first place though... Didn't first level characters in 3.5 basically do the same attack again and again - the one that they were best at, due to a feat or whatever. And it still gives a greater variation between characters of the same class.

 

[wedgeski]

Wow. I did not know this. I think more than anything this turns me off to 4E.

I'm genuinely interested to know for what particular reason.

 

[TerraDave]

"At-wills" are supposed to replace regular attacks most of the time.

They are in fact a little bit like many combat feats such as Weapon Focus. You use them all the time, unless some circumstance prevents you to fulfill the requirement.

IMHO one thing that is raising people's browse is how the at-wills are worded in the DDXP document, because they tend to repeat obvious stuff like attack bonus and damage. But maybe in the PHB they are worded in terms of bonuses, which makes them look more like feats.

Terminology is an issue here. To take the example above: with Tide of Iron, you basically are making a melee base attack. But, if you hit and have a sheild, you can bump your enemy back one. Or with Cleave, again it really is your base attack, and if you hit, and someone is standing next to them, then you can damage them as well.

One thing with that at wills is that you can't do both (bump and cleave). And you may not want to do either (you may want the guy to stay put). But each is really using a melee base attack.

 

[baberg]

His question was, when would you ever use the base attack when most of the characters have an at-will ability that is as good or better that their base attack.

@ = Warrior
X = Enemy
^ = Wizard
. = empty space

.....
@X..^
.....

Use knockback ability:

.....
@.X.^
.....

On monster's turn, he shifts into wizard's melee range and attacks him. Wizard dies.


Don't use knockback ability:

.....
@X..^
.....

Monster either has to use his move to get to wizard (provoking OA) or can only shift away from warrior, meaning no meleeing the wizard.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I'm genuinely interested to know for what particular reason.

What he said. I honestly cannot see why this is bad.

-TRRW

 

[Kwalish Kid]

His question was, when would you ever use the base attack when most of the characters have an at-will ability that is as good or better that their base attack.

This has almost been said already, but I think the point is that while everybody can use a base attack, classes get special abilities and using these abilities is what it means to have these classes. Class abilities are there to be used and used often.

 

[el-remmen]

I'm genuinely interested to know for what particular reason.

I guess it is a viceral reaction, because once I read your question I had to think about it, and it comes down to personal taste, I guess. I never saw anything wrong with swinging your sword every turn without a special ability attached. If it can be done at-will, how is it special?

I never have had the experiences in my group of people just doing their "best"/special thing every attack anyway (as someone suggested), so I guess it is also what I am used to and what I perceive as working or not working in the game as I play it now.

I guess I like when narrative and tactical aspects converge to require the attempt of something risky or the use of a limited resource. To me being able to do this kind of thing every time is less fun, not more.

 

[Wormwood]

If it can be done at-will, how is it special?

Because nobody else but you can do it.

(Barring another fighter in the party with the exact same feat/power choices, of course)

 

[el-remmen]

Because nobody else but you can do it.

(Barring another fighter in the party with the exact same feat/power choices, of course)

I guess that's not enough for my tastes. Also, I like resource management - to me it is a challenge of the game I enjoy.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I guess it is a viceral reaction, because once I read your question I had to think about it, and it comes down to personal taste, I guess. I never saw anything wrong with swinging your sword every turn without a special ability attached. If it can be done at-will, how is it special?

I never have had the experiences in my group of people just doing their "best"/special thing every attack anyway (as someone suggested), so I guess it is also what I am used to and what I perceive as working or not working in the game as I play it now.

I guess I like when narrative and tactical aspects converge to require the attempt of something risky or the use of a limited resource. To me being able to do this kind of thing every time is less fun, not more.

The At-Will abilities, while nice, don't eliminate this at all, anymore than considering a 3E fighter's sword attack an "At Will" ability would do so. You still have Per Encounter and Daily abilities as limited resources which require tactical thought in their use, and now *everyone* gets to make those kind of choices and do special things, not just the spellcasters. And those choices will generally outshine the At Will's. In addition, having more than one At Will ability also requires some tactical thinking about which to use when.

That said, the Wizard's At Will ability of Magic Missile isn't really much different mechanically than the 3E Wizard firing a crossbow every round. There's still a roll to hit to do damage. But it's now "magic" in terms of fluff, so it doesn't feel as strange as crossbow somehow becoming a "default" strategy for desperate wizards. And now the wizard can choose to have "rider" effects on top of this At Will by expending more limited resources.