Limiting At-Will Powers

[Neonchameleon]

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?

4e Design 101: Plain smashing a goblin's face with a flail is a Melee Basic Attack. Which is a power. (An at will power at that). Power is just a simple way of writing "Codified action".

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.

4e Design 203: At Will Powers aren't meant to be exciting. They are your bread and butter attacks. Encounter and daily powers, yes.

Alright, I see the points. What about limiting their at-wills by making them roll a d6? they can use an at-will on a roll of 4-6 so a 50/50 chance per turn... Maybe you can only use a power once before having to roll a 5 or 6 but your other at-wills can still be used in the mean time?

Melee Basic Attacks are At Will Powers. In a long fight you can literally not swing a sword without rolling a 5 or 6?

Or, what about sacrificing a move action to use a power during your attack action?

Please, NO! 4e combat is intentionally dynamic. Those move actions allowing you to move around matter. They make combat more than facing up to your enemy for a slapfight (and combine with zones and pushes for a far more active combat than other editions).

 

[tgrt]

If a monster's attack includes a push 1, why shouldn't the pcs be able to use the same arbitrary counter that you're using against Tide of Iron?

It depends entirely on the situation. However, I would most certainly give the PCs a modifier just like I would for the monsters if it made sense.

If you let a monster get a bonus against being knocked prone because he's seen one of the pcs use a 'knock prone' at will a couple of times, do the pcs get that same bonus when they fight a pack of wolves? If not, why not? If so, whoops- those wolves lose a substantial amount of their combat ability.

It's not about them seeing the power being used. In my example, it's about being in melee when that is the only action the PC takes turn after turn. It's not about the PC using the power judiciously, it's about the PC using the power indiscriminately.

To take your example of a wolf. A wolf bites, but not every bite is the same, so the same logic doesn't apply. Although there is a possibility that the PCs could develop a strategy for dealing with the wolves that would give them an advantage.

For instance, and for the record this is a contrived example, lets say that a pack of wolves always bites at the left arm. A PC could wrap clothing, double up armor, or something to the left arm and in those cases I would most certainly provide a modifier.

Limiting at wills like this is a terrible idea IMHO. It nerfs one of the biggest and best innovations of 4e...

That's just it. It's not limiting them. They can use them as much as they want, but they need to do it smart.

I'm guessing you're not going to put some penalty on magic missile, scorching burst or other wizard spells- you're really kicking the legs out from under that balance.

You missed the other example in my first post. It's not the same situation. However, that wizard is going to attract more attention and become a priority target.

The trick to getting tide of iron to work is to hit. The fighter shouldn't have to jump through hoops to pull off what everyone else in the party can manage without any trouble.

There's no jumping through hoops, and if he or she is really good it'll still succeed. It's just a modifier to reflect the PC doing the same thing over and over. I wouldn't apply it if he was mixing it up.

Also- no, there's not one specific way to perform a tide of iron. Maybe my fighter pushes his foe with his shield. Maybe the force of his blow pushes the enemy away...

Well that in of itself would be a rule change. The rules say, "You must be using a shield."

So you don't allow a push against larger opponents?

Did I say that? The rules for Tide of Iron already cover that. You can push a target if its your size, smaller, or one size larger.

You're putting arbitrary restrictions on your pcs. Part of the problem may be that you're reading the term "push" to literally. A push in D&D means you get the other guy to move away from you. It is not specifically a physical push at all- if it were, how would ranged, close or area effects that push you work?

That's a valid point. And very well could be true. The problem here is that we're going off topic on the subject of the Tide of Iron power. It was just an example to illustrate the point that we don't have to limit use of at-will powers, because being pragmatic will do that for us.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm new to the 4e rules, but not new to D&D. I've just been out of it for quite awhile. I thought this was an interesting topic, so I thought I'd offer my two cents. I may have a different opinion after I start a 4e campaign.

I have always liked a more pragmatic approach to dealing with potential inbalances.

Very few of the at wills are too imbalanced. The obvious exception is Twin Strike. As that's just shooting fast, it seems hard to nerf it the way you're suggesting.

You quoted a specific example about the fighter with an at-will power. I'm not talking about a general attack from a monster, so there's no correlation.

An at will power normally is a general attack power. See Cleave - do you think all Cleaves are the same?

There are many types of sword blows or ways a monster can approach to claw or bite, but basically one way to do the Tide of Iron.

Tide of Iron is an approach. It's driving forward behind or using the shield and pushing the monster back.

That can be as simple as throwing in a typical slash before following up with another Tide Of Iron attack. Regardless, you're missing the point.

Tide of Iron includes throwing in slashes. That's why it does weapon and not shield damage.

Hmm... I thought we were having a discussion on ideas about limiting at-will powers. You're still missing my point. And you're coming off to me as a jerk, or am I not reading you right?

You're coming off as someone who is "new to the 4e rules". 4e has really changed the game.

It's not about them seeing the power being used. In my example, it's about being in melee when that is the only action the PC takes turn after turn.

In this case the whole situation is self-limiting. First if that's the only action they take, they aren't using their encounter powers which are more powerful (and can only be used once/fight). Second, when I DM my fights don't tend to last more than three or four rounds. As PCs have between one and four encounter powers and a collection of dailies, the only time your case would be accurate would be a long drawn out slugfest where the tired combatants fall back on their most basic attacks while at the limits of their stamina - and that is why they are only using at wills. (Or the DM is just running a grindfest).

It's not about the PC using the power judiciously, it's about the PC using the power indiscriminately.

Doesn't happen except in very rare corner cases.

To take your example of a wolf. A wolf bites, but not every bite is the same, so the same logic doesn't apply.

Neither is every Tide of Iron. Tide of Iron is an approach. A round takes six seconds.

You missed the other example in my first post. It's not the same situation. However, that wizard is going to attract more attention and become a priority target.

That's a valid point. And very well could be true. The problem here is that we're going off topic on the subject of the Tide of Iron power. It was just an example to illustrate the point that we don't have to limit use of at-will powers, because being pragmatic will do that for us.

The trouble here is that what you call being pragmatic those of us with experience running 4e consider being arbitrary about a self-limiting problem. There are very few classes and builds for which doing the same thing every turn is other than self-crippling. Thieves, Slayers, and Twin Striking and Scout Rangers are about it. And the Slayer was designed for people who just want to say "I hit it" without worrying about tactics.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Ah, so basically classes should be mage, and mage sidekicks/packmules.

Yeah, no.

I thought it was pretty well known that mage supermacist grognards really just wanted to play Ars Magica with them being the magi and suckering everyone else into playing the grog.

Echoing what others have said, I think its a bad idea to limit at-wills.

 

[tgrt]

Very few of the at wills are too imbalanced...

I don't disagree with you.

An at will power normally is a general attack power. See Cleave - do you think all Cleaves are the same?

I don't think all cleaves are the same and I wouldn't apply the same approach to them as I might for Tide of Iron. However, at-wills are not general attack powers. For instance, for a fighter they are exploits.

In this case the whole situation is self-limiting. First if that's the only action they take, they aren't using their encounter powers which are more powerful (and can only be used once/fight)....

That very well be the case. However, apparently, for at least one person (the original poster) at-will powers seem to be an issue. My responses have been in relation to that.

My position all along is that they don't need to be limited. Adding a modifier is not a limitation to the power. It's a bonus to the opponent. I mean come on! Are you saying it's not going to get easier for you to defend against me if I continually do cross strikes without changing it up with another like a crooked strike, or even if I always maintain the same guard position? It wouldn't work in a real sword fight, so why should it work in our games?

Doesn't happen except in very rare corner cases.

That very well may be true too. I think the subject of the thread was scholastic, and worth discussing; otherwise, I wouldn't have replied.

The trouble here is that what you call being pragmatic those of us with experience running 4e consider being arbitrary about a self-limiting problem.

I disagree with your assertion that it's arbitrary. It's no more arbitrary then assigning less damage for falling 20 feet into water than to stone. There are things that the rule books aren't going to cover that is going to require a judgment call.

I don't know if it's a self-limiting problem or not; however, as I noted earlier at least one person thinks it's not, so it's worth the discussion.

 

[Arlough]

To push someone you're going to need to apply force to their center mass.

<emphasis mine>

So you don't allow a push against larger opponents?

So halflings can't push a goblin or human enemy?

Watch it, buddy!
My small halfling brawler can easily reach your medium goblin's navel, and will suddenly find a need to if you don't hand over your wallet.
That is, unless you have a giant growth potion...

 

[Saeviomagy]

I disagree with your assertion that it's arbitrary. It's no more arbitrary then assigning less damage for falling 20 feet into water than to stone. There are things that the rule books aren't going to cover that is going to require a judgment call.

I believe that the exact situation is much more analogous to saying that the human fighter PC takes 1d10 damage for being pushed off a cliff, while the human fighter NPC takes no damage at all for being pushed off the exact same cliff.

Either describing each successive repetition of a specific attack mechanic is sufficient to avoid penalties, or it's not. It shouldn't depend on whether the attacker is a PC or an NPC.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My position all along is that they don't need to be limited. Adding a modifier is not a limitation to the power. It's a bonus to the opponent.

Yes, it is. If the opponent has a bonus to its Defense, the attack will hit less often and will thus be less effective.

I mean come on! Are you saying it's not going to get easier for you to defend against me if I continually do cross strikes without changing it up with another like a crooked strike, or even if I always maintain the same guard position? It wouldn't work in a real sword fight, so why should it work in our games?

There's your problem. You seem to be assuming that Fighters don't know how to fight.

 

[tgrt]

I believe that the exact situation is much more analogous to saying that the human fighter PC takes 1d10 damage for being pushed off a cliff, while the human fighter NPC takes no damage at all for being pushed off the exact same cliff.

Either describing each successive repetition of a specific attack mechanic is sufficient to avoid penalties, or it's not. It shouldn't depend on whether the attacker is a PC or an NPC.

It doesn't nor did I ever say that. I would give the same consideration if an NPC repeatedly did the Tide of Iron (just for example). Although, I'd never have an NPC do that so it's a moot point.

If the player simply changes it up there is nothing that would be no predictability and therefore no bonus. For example, the player could do Tide of Iron then Tide of Iron then normal attack then Tide of Iron then normal attack and so on.

 

[tgrt]

There's your problem. You seem to be assuming that Fighters don't know how to fight.

That makes absolutely no sense. Is this really that hard to grasp?

I would hope you'd figure out the pattern if I grab your wrist and repeatedly hit you in the head and say, "stop hitting yourself". You may not be able to stop me, but knowing that's exactly what I'm going to do is going to give you a better chance.

The example is an exception and not a rule. It would only apply if the fighter went into the battle and just repeatedly and unceasingly did the Tide of Iron. I mean seriously, given that you're being attacked and then are getting hit by a shield, the type of weapon attack can be different, but the shield coming at you is what is pushing you and is a constant. You might not be able to stop it, but knowing it's coming every single time is going to improve your odds.