Limiting At-Will Powers

[Kingreaper]

Actually, no, you're not going to push a person let alone a monster in the scenario you described. My original point is to be pragmatic. That was a specific example, but in that case it's basically true. To push someone you're going to need to apply force to their center mass. That's predictable if you don't change it up. 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.

No, you're missing the point.

If you kick someone in the shins, they're likely to step backwards. In 4e that's called a PUSH.

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?

I don't intend to come off as a jerk. But when I see something I consider ludicrous it may be hard for me to avoid letting that show.

The examples I provided were contrived to explain my point. And to restate, my point is that there is not necessarily any reason to make house rules to limit the usage of at-will powers when there are pragmatic options to limit using them indiscriminately.

Except that your way of limiting them seemed to be a house rule.

The rules cannot cover every situation from every angle. It's the DMs job to referee and maintain order. I prefer to keep the story going and to make the PCs think during combat too.

If you actually try PLAYING 4e you will find that the players will never resort to spamming an at-will unless they have to.

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and in so doing you're creating serious problems.
The game as it exists runs far better than your modified system where you go:
"nope, you used that power before, now they're expecting it. Take -2 to hit. No it doesn't matter that you're doing it differently, it's the same power"
and simultaneously go
"You say you're expecting them to use the sword attack? Doesn't matter, they have a dozen different sword attacks. Just because they're the same power, doesn't mean they're doing it the same way."

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.

Okay; here's the problems with that:

A) that's not going to happen. Ever. Unless the fighter has no encounter powers left.

And if the fighter has no encounter powers left, then decreasing their at-wills is just being an arse.

B) If the monsters are prepared for a particular attack, any other attack should get a bonus to hit right? Because they're prepared for a specific attack.

If not, then it makes no sense. You can't prepare Vs. one technique without weakening your defences Vs. others.

C) If the players declare "We know what they're going to do, so we're prepared for it" you either have to go "Nope, only monsters can adapt to their enemies" (in which case you seem like an arse, and it makes no sense) or "Okay, the monsters now all have -2 to hit" (in which case the game doesn't work quite right)


Bottom line: Your concept just plain isn't a good one. The problem it solves exists solely in your mind, and the problems it creates are obvious.

 

[the Jester]

Seriously, no power works the same way every time. Certainly not tide of iron. There's no mechanical thingie in there that says you are bashing them with your shield to move them. Not at all- at most, there's flavor text.

I think- intending no offense here- the problem here is an unwillingness to stretch your imagination, and worse yet, in a way that favors certain pcs over others and seems to favor monsters over pcs.

If your assertion is that every tide of iron looks the same, you haven't played 4e with very creative fighter players, or at least not ones that had tide of iron.

There really isn't any need to limit at wills in 4e. Those are a pc's fallbacks that they will use a fair amount- but those encounter powers are so much better that they will pretty much always prefer them when possible.

 

[Kerranin]

Normal characters get just two at-will powers (yes I know some get more), and I don't know about you but I usually try to pick at will powers to suit different situations.

So for instance, as a bard I will probably have a melee and a ranged at-will power. If I run out of encounter powers, and I am in melee say, I have no choice but to repeatedly use the only melee at-will I have. (since as a bard my basic attack blows goats )

I have to agree that just because I am using the same power over and over, doesn't mean I am using it in the same way. An obvious example of this is 'Viscious Mockery', a Bard ranged at-will. I personally take great delight in trying to come up with different insults every time I use this power.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Cleave is a level 1 fighter at will exploit. Tide of Iron is a level 1 fighter at will exploit. They are exactly the same this way - or can you simply not see more than one way to drive someone back? Why are you penalising the one but not the other? From a position of experience with 4e this is arbitrary inconsistancy. Pointless, annoying, and arbitrarily painful.

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.

And the rest of us have pointed out why the original poster does not know what he is talking about.

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.

In short it is a penalty to the power.

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?

I'm saying that a 4e round represents six seconds. The exploit represents the aggregate of what you are doing over the course of those six seconds. Your "spamming cross strikes" is missing the point.

It wouldn't work in a real sword fight, so why should it work in our games?

I don't know. Why do you think that your description has any damn thing to do with either swordfights or games?

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.

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.

It is a self-limiting problem with one person suggesting solutions that can make people literally unable to attack.

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.

Have you ever read the 4e monster manuals? A hell of a lot of brutes and minions only have one at will power. That doesn't mean that a mummy always uses its rotting grasp one way.

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.

What is this "Normal Attack" you are talking about?

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

What you are saying is not hard to grasp. It's just that you have singularly failed to grasp the way 4e powers work. I am trying to explain.

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.

And this has precisely nothing to do with 6 second combat rounds and 4e powers.

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,

Where in Tide Of Iron does it ever say you are getting hit by the shield? Nowhere, that's where. One obvious way to Tide of Iron is to advance behind the shield so that there simply isn't room for the enemy to fight round the shield unless he steps back. And this actually works in real combat. Another way is to push with the shield. A further way is to funnel and bully. You have somehow made up out of thin air the idea that just because you are using a shield to advance it means you have to hit your foe.

the type of weapon attack can be different, but the shield coming at you is what is pushing you and is a constant.

In which case, Tide of Iron is already mixing things up in the way you want by your understanding. Give the defenders the +2 because you are coming at them with the same sword every attack. That makes one hell of a lot more sense than your understanding where with Tide of Iron you do sword damage (not shield damage) and then push them with the shield. With most attacks the sword is constant. In Tide of Iron you are already mixing things up with sword and shield.

You might not be able to stop it, but knowing it's coming every single time is going to improve your odds.

So. Apparenly you penalise people for coming in with a sword every time they want to attack and knowing that's coming. Do people in your campaigns carry a golf bag of weapons? And switch weapons every four rounds or you penalise them? Because that is what you need to do to have consistency to penalise them for repeatedly using Tide of Iron.

Normal characters get just two at-will powers (yes I know some get more), and I don't know about you but I usually try to pick at will powers to suit different situations.

So for instance, as a bard I will probably have a melee and a ranged at-will power. If I run out of encounter powers, and I am in melee say, I have no choice but to repeatedly use the only melee at-will I have. (since as a bard my basic attack blows goats )

This. Very much this. 4e is effects based - and the at wills outline your approach.

I have to agree that just because I am using the same power over and over, doesn't mean I am using it in the same way. An obvious example of this is 'Viscious Mockery', a Bard ranged at-will. I personally take great delight in trying to come up with different insults every time I use this power.

And that's part of the reason that Bard At Will is I think the favourite of every single Bard player

 

[eriktheguy]

I have to continue to disagree with any form of limiting at-wills. Other posters have already made the two most important points; at-wills are rarely spammed and at-wills are rarely used in the same way each round.

Most characters have been using their at-wills for their entire career. They know at least a dozen ways to execute each one.

Many builds depend on spamming at-wills. Twin strikers would be unnecessarily nerfed by this rule. I don't see the necessity for it and I don't like the changes it would make. These two factors add together to make a (imo) bad houserule.

I'd also add that any combat in which PCs are forced to use at-wills round after round is one in which they have run out of encounter powers. It's going to be a long combat. Adding additional limitations or penalties to this situation is going to exasperate it and make the fight even longer. This is a bad thing.

 

[Kalva]

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?

I have to limit my friends At-Will power cuz its so over powered. so i made it a Ecnounter power. spell is called Twin Strike. so unfair lol

 

[Paxanadu]

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

While I agree that limiting at will can open a big can o worms, the Original Poster asked for something and got a lot of debunking instead of the answer he wanted.

for zero micromanagement "archer can shoot infinite number of arrows" kind of playstyle, stick with 4e raw. But for "must avoid spending too much charges" kind of play, what i propose changes drastically the game, yes, that's the idea, but could work for what the OP is searching.

Sure, it may junk some builds that are based on at-will powers, but tweaking can always be done...

------------

Each PC has a single power points reserve. Mana Points (Arcane Pool), Faith Points (Divine Pool), Prowess Points (Martial Pool), etc. Basic attacks don't belong to any pool and thus there is no points reserve for them.

At-Wills Heroic powers cost x1 point
Per Encounters Heroic powers cost x2 points
Dailies Heroic powers cost x3.

Heroic tier powers cost x1
Paragon tier powers cost x2
Epic tier powers cost x3

For example, using an Epic daily costs 9 points.

Simple numbers = easy to use system!

This points cost is in addition to the normal raw limitation of the power itself. So even if you have tons of points left, you still can't use your daily more than once per day.

The amount of points depends mainly on PC level (actually, on the number and tier of known powers of a generic PC of that level), and is tweaked to be based on a typical "fighting day", where not all of the best powers are used in every fights, and were minor battles put a lot more emphasis on using only basic strikes.

There are many ways to calculate the number of PP given, but all rely on the following factors (determined once, not each game!):

1- determining average number of milestones per day

2- determine expected/wanted usage of powers, in terms of numbers and frequency, within that frame.

3- determining milestone "variance": do you want the PCs to get ALL of their PP after and extended rest, once (this allow nuking when PCs know there is only a single encounter in the day, and makes extended dungeon crawls VERY dangerous, forcing early stop too easily), or instead at the other extreme, PCs get ONLY the milestone share per milestone (and thus will invitably get creamed in the boss fight).

I personnally go with this:

Simply total the number of powers (per encounters and daily should cost more but they should also be used less often). Double it. Then mutiply it by the tier number. This is the size of the power points reserve. For example at level 1 this means 8 PP, and 102 PP at level 30.

After an extended rest, the PP reserve gets fully restored.
After a milestone, half the PP reserve will get restored the next time a short rest is finished. Note that this does not "stack", if the PCs go two miestones without resting, they will stick get only half their PP reserve back.


Finally, since "realistic story" encounters are not alwyas exactly tailored to PC level, a milestone shoulds not be reached after any 2 encounters. Killing a lonely goblin sentry then later killing a single small webspider do not a milestone make. Encounters are now of 4 types: Negligible, Minor, Moderate, and Major. When in doubt, use the lesser encounter type. Milestones are reached after reaching "8 milestone points".

A Major Encounter is an important major battle, but not necesserally a boss fight. Any typical fight in any typical D&D module you buy is automatically a major encounter, simply because they are all "designed" to be equal to PC level. A major encounter is worth 4 milestone points. Which makes it the same as in the raw (milestone after 2 encounters). It is not necesseraly a fight, but could be something of equal challenge.

A Moderate Encounter is one in which the PCs clearly have the advantage, and will definitely win but they must still take the fight seriously. For example, if a D&D 4 module "encounters always tailored to PC level" would make the PCs fight say 8 orcs, and in the "the story may actually change encounter power level", the PCs actually managed to fight the 8 orcs but in two completely separate days, in two batches of 4, then those 2 fights are 2 "Moderate" encounters and instead of a "Major" encounter. A Moderate Encounters count as 2 milestone points. A moderate encounter is like a "more or less half the challenge" encounter.

Minor Encounters are for encounters where the PCs will surely win easily but might still take non-negligible damage. For example, if the PCs manage to fight only 2 of the 8 previous orcs separately, that is a Minor encounter. Minor encounters count as 1 milestones point. They are like "about one fourth the challenge" encounters.

Negligible Encounters are for encounters where the PCs will surely win very easily and will probably won't even take any kind of serious damage, maybe a couple small scratches. For example, if the PCs manage to fight only 1 of the 8 orcs separately, then its an easy kill, and is a Negligible encounter. Negligible encounters give ZERO milestones points. While picking off all 8 orcs one by one is very efficient and maybe very intelligent, it is also much less heroic.


Challenges must overall be reduced a bit while still giving the same amount of experience (i don't do it because I think leveling up every 10 encounters is a way too fast progression rate -- i don't do campaigns that end after only one year of play but what the hey if you like diablo good for you, personnally I believe if I want to make a 5 year long campaign with a convoluted story and down-to-earth heroes where the end isn't made of manga-style PCs at the power level of gods, this also means that it will forcibly take more than one adventure for them to level up, and thus a much reduced progression rate, enough so that they have ample opportunity to interact and know their own allies full set of powers BEFORE reaching the next level, instead of leveling up after sometimes not even having the chance to having used all of their OWN new powers... but that is for another thread) they important thing is to take into account that with my system players will definitely have reduced capabilities in the long run, and thus will often have to rely on more than just their powers and equipment, but aso their brains and/or their tongues.

Magic must also be adressed in the same manner as PC powers, otherwise this makes magic much more powerful reltive to the Pcs themselves. since this set of rules is for less-uber worlds, it should be definitely controlled. A good way to control it strongly is to use a couple of the ideas right below. So even if the PCs are fulldecked with too much magic, they won't be able to use it all anyway.

Idea one: Double the number of magic item per day usages gained after extended rest, but not after milestones. Unless item has keyword "frequent" added to its daily power, using that item's power costs two charges of daily magic item usage.

Idea two: Permanent items require "soul linking" to work. This is simply spending a small number of PP to gains the items benefits, otherwise the magic doesn't activate for that PC. Let's say, 2 PP per "plus" (varies according to how much limitation wants to be put on magic items -- if you want your heroes full decked with stuff, maybe 1 PP per plus is better...) Side benefit: allow introducing the fact that a epic item can only be activated by an epic character, for example... Items giving bonuses to the one creature using it (rather than some environmental effect like a magic bridge) require a new soul-link per each new user, and can have only one soul link existing at a time (so giving a friend your armor means you have to pay again if he gives it back to you afterward). -- strong incentive against "constant magic item switching". Item switching would occur after an extended rest, and not in the middle of adventuring.

Idea three: item powers are not free but items are merely containers that are powered by the soul or whatever. This makes it cheaper to use the item, but doesnt make it free. So if you have a wand with a really cool per encounter power, instead of trying to use it in EVERY fight, you'd made wiser choices to use it only when it is best. Powers used through items require half the PP. So a PC with lots of magical items would essentially up to double his usages of powers, not get unlimited power, making being loeaded like a christmas tree with items a useless idea. Howeve,r personnally I don't like very much keeping track of "half points" of anything. Makes my teeth grind. So maybe instead it could be "you pay full PP" (essentially, magic items just give more diversity to your repertoire of powers, but not more actal quantity of power) but it makes the items more lame because player chosen powers are usually better than random treasure item power. I also don't like mixing too muh player capability with item capability. What i use is that magic item powers cost 1 PP less than normal. And for an at-will power, I add a checkbox just like per encounter powers, and the first use is free (unchecked box) but not the others, and when encouner powerds are restored so does the at-will "free use" box. This helps prevents using the same item over and over.


With my system, wise PCs will try to avoid overkill attacks modes, to keep their points for the important fights only. They will see that using their intelligence instead of blindly showing off like mad with their best powers, will make those powers shine a lot more when used in those important fights. It is unfortunately much more micromanagement,

The system must also be extended to cover magical items, but I haven't that part in a satisfactorily simple manner.


Something must be done to help a bit those classes that have pitiful basic attacks relative to their at will attack powers. For spellcasters, this is easily done by making all rituals dependent on specific classes, often the wizard.


Also, forgot the racial and class powers, they should also affect the number of power points received.

All that being said and done, I wouldn't use this system with a typical d&d 4 campaign unless I also implemented limits on class and racial choices. When you have players that can play eladrins that can TELEPORT in the middle of battle, and devils er tieflings right in the middle of the paryt, this smaklcs so much of "uberly exagerated sky-high fantasy" that putting limitations on powers seems retty moot.

My opinion id that adapting D&D 4 to a less "uber high fantasy" and more of a mediaval fantasy" type of setting is very difficult, but th system presented here is a good start.

 

[airwalkrr]

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?

Alternatives? 1st edition comes to mind.

 

[Kerranin]

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?

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

I feel both of these are more balanced between the classes and will naturally even out with the NPCs/Monsters following the same rules.

As others have said, at-will powers are a fundamental part of some classes, and removing or reducing the ability to use them have a significant effect. Just adding a free melee training / range training feat isn't going to balance that out, especially since the current version of melee training only adds half the stat modifier to damage, thus reducing damage.

Perhaps you need to take a look at essentials classes instead? If you really feel you need to modify the non-essentials classes to do this, I'd seriously consider just switching systems. 4e would require considerable changes to re-balance the challenge between players and monsters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

While I agree that limiting at will can open a big can o worms, the Original Poster asked for something and got a lot of debunking instead of the answer he wanted.

This isn't an echo chamber. And his idea would have ended in tears. He got the most useful response we could give even if not the one he wanted.

At-Wills Heroic powers cost x1 point
Per Encounters Heroic powers cost x2 points
Dailies Heroic powers cost x3.

Heroic tier powers cost x1
Paragon tier powers cost x2
Epic tier powers cost x3

For example, using an Epic daily costs 9 points.

Simple numbers = easy to use system!

And also absolutely spamtastic.

This points cost is in addition to the normal raw limitation of the power itself. So even if you have tons of points left, you still can't use your daily more than once per day.

Wait, what? Then what the hell do those points of yours mean? Other than forcing you to use your at wills more to try to save up points as well as use dailies. Or turning you into a stuffed lemon.

The amount of points depends mainly on PC level (actually, on the number and tier of known powers of a generic PC of that level), and is tweaked to be based on a typical "fighting day", where not all of the best powers are used in every fights, and were minor battles put a lot more emphasis on using only basic strikes.

Knight, I choose you! (Or thief, or slayer). When there are classes built round the basic attacks this is going to have interesting consequences.

All that being said and done, I wouldn't use this system with a typical d&d 4 campaign unless I also implemented limits on class and racial choices. When you have players that can play eladrins that can TELEPORT in the middle of battle, and devils er tieflings right in the middle of the paryt, this smaklcs so much of "uberly exagerated sky-high fantasy" that putting limitations on powers seems retty moot.

My opinion id that adapting D&D 4 to a less "uber high fantasy" and more of a mediaval fantasy" type of setting is very difficult, but th system presented here is a good start.

And I say unto you that you know not how to use 4e. All versions of D&D have had mages able to cast in the length of time that it takes for people to swing a sword. They are all much higher fantasy than almost any fiction I can think of. The Grey Mouser is almost impossible in any version of D&D.

Any version, that is, except 4e. If you ban all spellcasting classes and just run with martial classes (and a few primal outliers), D&D 4e still works. Magic becomes scary and the only spells the PCs can cast are rituals - which at the very least cost time and money - and may fail. A medaeval fantasy game of 4e is therefore trivial - it just takes the hoserule "The only classes allowed are the Martial classes". Mouser becomes a thief with the Ritual Caster feat. And you get your medaeval fantasy and scary scary magic feel in a way you simply don't with older editions. Blocking the PCs from combat magic makes it a whole lot more exotic and scary than it ever has been in the history of D&D. And you don't need a cleric in a 4e party - a warlord will do the job or you can get by without a healer at all in a way that will leave you requiring bed rest all the time in older editions.

Seriously, a party with only characters chosen from the knight, slayer, thief, scout, hunter, and warlord (possibly also Sentinel, Cavalier, Barbarian (no elemental powers), and Warden (likewise if possible)) will feel a lot more medaeval fantasy than anything there has ever been in D&D.