Limiting At-Will Powers

[Fiskonian]

I've been wondering about ways to limit At-Will powers so that not every attack is a power.

What happened to just plain smashing a goblins face with your flail? I feel as though being able to use a special power every single turn makes it less exciting to use them, ie. they become the norm.

I was thinking maybe that a player can use lvl + 4 at-will powers, lvl + 2 encounter powers, and lvl + 0 daily powers, with a short rest regenerating 2 at wills, and 1 encounter?
So a lvl 3 character would have 7 at will powers, 5 encounter, and 3 daily to use per day (sort of like how wizards prepped spells in 3ed) but a short rest would recoup 2 at wills and 1 encounter.

Any thoughts? Alternatives?

 

[eriktheguy]

I wouldn't recommend against.

Some classes have much better melee basic attacks than others. In 3e, this is what made fighters good. In 4e, the classes are already balanced, so this ruling would massively favor str classes (whose at-wills are basically souped up melee basics) and would heavily nerf other classes. At the very least it would cause melee training to become a tax feat, and at the worst it would ruin ranged classes who don't have dex.

Your current method increases the # of at-will usages with level, but gives a static recharge per encounter. Would you allow players to chain short rests together to receive more encounter and at-wills back? If not, they would become very weak after a few combats. They would only recharge 3 powers between each fight, while they would need to use about 6+ powers per fight.

Additionally, some classes rely more on their powers to deliver damage and would be harshly punished by this. Barbarians are strikers who get extra damage built into their powers, while rogues and rangers add damage to all attacks. The barbarian would have their striking capacity limited. Sorcerers also require their powers to use their striker damage bonus, firing a crossbow won't do it.

I think what you are trying to change is such a foundational part of the system that it is going to be very difficult. At the very least, consider that this ruling will decrease the party's damage output. This will result in longer fights, causing them to use up their limited powers more quickly. Sort of a positive feedback of grind.

If you were to take a serious chunk out of the enemies' HPs (say, one half) then this could work. The shorter fights would make those at-wills really count, and would encourage them to try to conserve resources and fight smart.
But definitely make sure the whole group is on board before such a massive change.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Do the players have the same qualms? Or, if you're a player, do the rest agree?

That's goes for any and all rule changes, that I think everyone should agree to them, but this in particular seems like something that players just would not like. I do not see an increase in fun from going to the current rules to your house rule. But, if everyone is game, go for it.

 

[the Jester]

The whole point of at wills is so you aren't just whacking goblins in the face over and over again.

Keep in mind too that if you limit at wills, you are seriously screwing every class that doesn't rely on strength for attacks.

 

[Rune]

I was thinking maybe that a player can use lvl + 4 at-will powers, lvl + 2 encounter powers, and lvl + 0 daily powers, with a short rest regenerating 2 at wills, and 1 encounter?

Frankly, with that many daily and encounter powers, I doubt that players will even look at their at-wills again after, I dunno, level 5 or so. Your scale will probably not lengthen battles after that point (maybe earlier), because your players will be pulling out dailies in every encounter and using encounters to back them up. Chances are, battles will get a lot shorter very quickly (and increasingly, as the party levels).

 

[Noctos]

Chances are, battles will get a lot shorter very quickly (and increasingly, as the party levels).

oh yeah thats for sure.

The whole point of at wills is so you aren't just whacking goblins in the face over and over again

wacking a goblin in the head was the fun you know. i didn't allow in my games short answers like "i throw my axe at him." my players gave detailed answers to the almighty question. "what do you do?" and i never gave a simple reply of "you killed the orc"

but you have to think in older editions at will powers didn't exsist. if you wanted an at will power you beter get a magical weapon with it. or have one built. that system worked great for my old crew. they spent the dollar to have special things cause the new gear ment more money could be made.

 

[drothgery]

oh yeah thats for sure.



wacking a goblin in the head was the fun you know. i didn't allow in my games short answers like "i throw my axe at him." my players gave detailed answers to the almighty question. "what do you do?" and i never gave a simple reply of "you killed the orc"

but you have to think in older editions at will powers didn't exsist. if you wanted an at will power you beter get a magical weapon with it. or have one built. that system worked great for my old crew. they spent the dollar to have special things cause the new gear ment more money could be made.

And hey, the Essentials Slayer, Knight, and Theif will do that for you.

But pre-3e a low-level cleric was just a worse fighter (less damaging weapon, lower hit points, worse THAC0) with a handful of spells (probably mostly Cure X Wounds) and a low-level wizard was basically just hiding in the back trying to stay alive after casting his one or two low-level spells for the day. 3e allowed the low-level wizard to be a decent backup ranged character by changing how crossbows worked, and gave all casters more spells at low levels, but you couldn't cast a spell every round in most combat scenes until at least level 5 (unless you were playing a warlock or something similar).

And, well, I don't think many players selected 'wizard' to be second-rate crossbowmen; they wanted their characters to cast spells. Not to mention that an at-will power that does about as much damage as a sword strike or arrow shot (well, probably a little less with a nice side effect) isn't a big change in terms of results, anyway (except that the wizard's more likely to hit with his int-based at-will than a dex-based crossbow or a str-based staff).

 

[Noctos]

And, well, I don't think many players selected 'wizard' to be second-rate crossbowmen; they wanted their characters to cast spells. Not to mention that an at-will power that does about as much damage as a sword strike or arrow shot (well, probably a little less with a nice side effect) isn't a big change in terms of results, anyway (except that the wizard's more likely to hit with his int-based at-will than a dex-based crossbow or a str-based staff).

in second edition in order to play a mage and not sit around or die alot you had to actually play him. A person with a brain and who understood a mage and what he was capable of, could make is lvl 3 mage stronger and more use full than a lvl 8 fighter. i have yet to look over even 2% of 3.5 or 4th edition rules but it seems that the more i read the more they took they took away from this game. i keep reading about how they gave it more balance across the board but i don't see it i think they cheapened it. but i will see as i continue to research

and a low-level wizard was basically just hiding in the back trying to stay alive after casting his one or two low-level spells for the day

mages are spell casters they are suppose to cast spell and make use of magical equipment. if a mage ran out of spells then i guess he should have made more scrolls with spells scripted on them.

 

[eriktheguy]

in second edition in order to play a mage and not sit around or die alot you had to actually play him. A person with a brain and who understood a mage and what he was capable of, could make is lvl 3 mage stronger and more use full than a lvl 8 fighter. i have yet to look over even 2% of 3.5 or 4th edition rules but it seems that the more i read the more they took they took away from this game. i keep reading about how they gave it more balance across the board but i don't see it i think they cheapened it. but i will see as i continue to research

mages are spell casters they are suppose to cast spell and make use of magical equipment. if a mage ran out of spells then i guess he should have made more scrolls with spells scripted on them.

I think the main problems most people had with this system were as follows:

• Spellcasters became much more powerful at higher levels than non-spell casters, even for players that put about the same level of thinking into it.
• You were rewarded much more for system mastery than for actual ingenuity.

I think both of these points are true to a degree. I agree that the wizard feels 'cheaper' in 4e; they work the same way as all the other classes now. For my players who never experienced 3e, they don't have any idea and they absolutely love playing. One of my 3e veterans doesn't like it, but everyone else does.

I like the fact that in 4e, high tier games revolve around the whole party and not just the spellcasters, this was definitely a problem in 3e. In any case high level wizards in 4e do get access to some really cool powers and abilities that other classes can't have easily.

I'm surprised you don't see the balance in 4e. The game is much more tightly balanced than any previous edition.

All in all I think it's worth giving a spin. If you want to help keep spellcasters feel real, then you can do some basic houserules on rituals. For example, let players cast them as a standard action instead of taking 10 minutes.

 

[the Jester]

in second edition in order to play a mage and not sit around or die alot you had to actually play him. A person with a brain and who understood a mage and what he was capable of, could make is lvl 3 mage stronger and more use full than a lvl 8 fighter.

And you think this is a good thing?

If your 3rd level pc is better than Joe's 8th level pc, something is wrong.

(That's ignoring the fact that a 2e F8 is going to cut your MU3 to pieces in any but the most contrived circumstances.)