I'n a little concerned...

[Gorrstagg]

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 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.

Your use of risky, or limited resource is your encounter power or your daily powers. Again, in all honesty, this is nothing different from 3.5 and using feats to enhance your attacks.

Again these characters being 1st level have some base abilities and hit points. They are to be considered someone experienced to get to their point to begin adventuring. If you imagine them as being 3rd level in say 3.5 (Power levels are generally agreed as pegged about there.)

Then you would have 2 feats. 1 for 1st level and 1 for 3rd level.

Let's take a look at the pregen ranger, he's got Careful Shot, which is 1d10 damage, and +4 to hit. (Think Power Attack but reduce damage for more precise shooting)

And what about a feat that allows you to move 1 square (5') either before or after your shot.

It's all similar but you have to wrap your head around the way they coded combat feats and created a large pool of options.

If you don't like diversity of options, thats entirely up to you. I'm not sure what viceral reaction your having to combat moving around on the tables, or your feats getting renamed powers. But I'll respect your opinion on the subject. I'm just not sure how dynamic moving combats is a bad thing, or that this is fundamentally all that different from 3.5's current set up. Other than they've taken ALL classes from top to bottom and spread them out over 30 levels. Taken feats and expanded on the idea so that each class has a bunch of personal style options for their "Version" of their character and go on from there. So that everyone can participate in combat encounters, and also social encounters.

 

[Cadfan]

el-remmen:

In 4e, you get three types of abilities. Per Day, Per Encounter, and At Will. You also get a number of other types of attacks that you may use At Will, but which are not considered "powers" because they're available to anyone from any class.

Per Day abilities tend to be showstoppers. For the pre generated Fighter we've seen, his Per Day ability is a single enormous strike that does a lot of damage. And unlike other characters, he can reuse his per day ability if it doesn't work.

Per Encounter abilities tend to be decent, above average attacks. For the pre generated Fighter, this was an attack in which the Fighter struck one target, took a five foot step, and struck another target. The damage, for both attacks, was equal to the "standard attack" damage.

At Will abilities tend to be special not because they're unusual, but because only you have them. Other party members or other classes do not. They are intended to be the bread and butter of your class. For the Fighter that included Tide of Iron (strike a foe and push them back a space, you may advance into their space), and Cleave (strike a foe and do a small amount of damage to an adjacent foe).

I don't know whether that affects your view of 4e, but I figured I'd at least explain the basic structure.

Personally, I think the best way to think about it is this- don't think of Powers as necessarily being weird, special flashy effects. For At Will powers, they're just special things that modify your particular character's ability to fight. For the melee fighter described above, just imagine a fighter who fights with strong, brutal strokes that swing in wide arcs, and who uses his shield not only to protect himself but to shove people. In a way, he might be fighting the same way his friend the cleric fights (weapon + shield, hitting people with a hammer), except that the Fighter is better at it and gets more out of it than the cleric does. The cleric's talents lie elsewhere.

 

[DandD]

That's what Encounter and Daily Powers then are for those who like Ressource Management, aren't they?

 

[FireLance]

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.

Just wondering - did you have a problem with 3e feats that gave a constant bonus, such as Dodge and Weapon Finesse? At-will abilities in 4e can be thought of in roughly the same manner: they give you an ability that you can use at any time. With at-will abilities, there is less resouce management (beyond choosing which at-will abilities you have), but there is a choice: you have to decide which you use on your turn. Resource management of the more traditional kind comes in the form of per encounter and (especially) per day abilities.

 

[wedgeski]

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.

As it happens this is close to something I've posted in the past myself (in a 'what worries you most about 4ed' thread). When every attack is special, none of them are. But over time I've come to think that I'm just applying 3.5 thinking to the new game. In June, I doubt it'll bother me that a fighter can bull-rush with every hit or a wizard can unleash magic missiles at will; everyone will have those kinds of options, so the default standard for the game will change. Bull-rushing will become 'ordinary' and it's the Encounter and Daily powers (as well as spectacular effects provided by magic items and the like) that represent the dramatic, risky, and limited.

If you think about it, shoving someone back with your shield isn't a particularly spectacular or special move, it's part of every sword-and-board fighter's fundamental repertoire. It's only the fact that it required an abnormal check in 3.5, and actually replaced any damage you might otherwise have done, that made it a relatively rare and specialised maneuver.

I've started talking in specifics, but hopefully what I'm trying to suggest comes through.

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

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.

Then 4e sounds like just the thing for you. 4e fighters have to deal with resource management because they have per-encounter and per-day powers as well as their at-will attacks. In 3.5, everything a fighter can do is at will. If you like resource management I can't see how you'd like 3.5 fighters more than 4e fighters.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Definitely Off Topic

...a wizard can unleash magic missiles at will...

Gonna stray from the topic for a moment, but...

Has anyone heard/read/whatever whether or not the will be an option for the wizard to release more than one Magic Missile at a time, like the spell used to do as the wizard progressed in levels? I really enjoyed the "Machine Gun Effect" from previous editions.

 

[Zinovia]

I really like the idea (haven't seen it in practice) of two fighters barging eachother around the battlefield while everyone else tries to stay out of their way!

That reminds me of SCA combats that I've seen when you have two very mobile fighters. The fight winds up traveling all over the place as one guy backpedals away, and tries to get off quick shots, while the other keeps moving forward trying to land a solid hit. Light taps don't count - you have to land a solid blow.

SCA combat is not choreographed the way that renaissance faire or stage combat is. They use heavy armor and rattan swords (it won't splinter the way wood does). So in many respects, you get a more realistic simulation of what sword fighting looks like as far as the types of maneuvers they can use, although some such as shield bash are disallowed for safety purposes. Visibility is restricted by the helms, but movement in armor is surprisingly easy for those of you who've never tried wearing it. Armored fighters are *very* mobile in fights, but would be hard-pressed to do a full out run.

It sounds like 4E combat will simulate the kind of fighting I've seen in the SCA better than 3E did. In 3E you don't want to move around or else you lose your iterative attacks and open yourself to an AoO, but 4E does seem to encourage mobility. I've never seen 2 people just standing there exchanging blows and not moving during a sword fight. Or very seldom anyway. I remember a fight between someone with a short spear and another with a 2-handed sword. The spear fighter never moved. The other guy stumbled as he moved forward and landed helmet-grille first on the end of the spear. Face-shot counts as a kill. End of fight. That's what I call rolling a 1 on your attack.

 

[el-remmen]

Okay, I am gonna try to respond to a few posts/questions all at once here, so bear with me. . .

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.

Right, I get that, but I don't like it. I don't like the idea of something magic being default anything. Flavor-wise it just doesn't sit right with what I look for when I play D&D, or at least how I am used to playing it (we don't even use thunderstones or tanglefoot bags in my games - those would be special magical items).

If you don't like diversity of options, thats entirely up to you. I'm not sure what viceral reaction your having to combat moving around on the tables, or your feats getting renamed powers. But I'll respect your opinion on the subject. I'm just not sure how dynamic moving combats is a bad thing, or that this is fundamentally all that different from 3.5's current set up.

Yeah, actually, I don't like too big a diversity of options. I think there is a such thing as too much choice, but I don't see that as an issue here.

As for dynamic moving combats, I already have those in 3.xE. This is another subject entirely, but from the beginning of the official 4E talk, I have found that many of the problems they are "fixing" never were problems for me and my group, but I understand and accept that we are not norm.

Per Day abilities tend to be showstoppers. For the pre generated Fighter we've seen, his Per Day ability is a single enormous strike that does a lot of damage. And unlike other characters, he can reuse his per day ability if it doesn't work.

I know this going to sound like I want it both ways (b/c I guess I do), but I also don't like the idea of fighter "powers" at all. I rather have something like power attack that allows a character to trade up accuracy for damage as often as they like then a "martial power" arbitraritly usable once per day. I can justify that for some kind of magical or ki ability, but it doesn't work for me in terms of what the fighter is.

Just wondering - did you have a problem with 3e feats that gave a constant bonus, such as Dodge and Weapon Finesse? At-will abilities in 4e can be thought of in roughly the same manner: they give you an ability that you can use at any time.

I don't see that as the same thing because those are (basically) passive abilities that augment something pre-existing, not a new ability added on to something basic that works everytime. Or at least, that's how I see it.

In June, I doubt it'll bother me that a fighter can bull-rush with every hit or a wizard can unleash magic missiles at will; everyone will have those kinds of options, so the default standard for the game will change. Bull-rushing will become 'ordinary'

That's what I'm afraid of!

 

[billd91]

They don't want any character to be stuck swinging a sword or using a hand crossbow 90% of the time. The at will abilities are supposed to replace the basic attacks and make the bulk of combat more interesting for everyone.

So you end up using an at will ability 90% of the time. I'm not seeing much difference between 3e and 4e at that point.

What I would prefer is for there to be no dominant strategy for the PC to follow every time. When playing with the pre-gens from the D&D Experience, there were definitely dominant strategies once the per encounter abilities were exhausted (and in some cases even before they were exhausted). I don't think a single PC used their regular attack. If the designers want to see PCs not doing the same thing round after round, then there should be better balance in the choices and the basic attack should be better than it is. More damage would be nice to balance out the other perks of the at wills for melee-type characters.