Limiting At-Will Powers

[Arlough]

Take the flavor text away, and at-wills are the "I hit the goblin in the face" powers. Basic attacks are just that, a wizard punching the goblin that is in his face, a fighter backhanding a kobold as it tries to run past, a rogue taking an extra stab.

Characters are specialized to be what they are. Just as fighter is really good at melee but at best adequate with a bow, a warlock is all about launching arcane power, but not likely to win a tavern brawl. At-wills define your character's style and specialization.
Basic attacks are flailing without style because you aren't facing the right way, or you don't have the right spell ready, whatever. And since a reactive swing of the sword is similar to the regular attack a Str based character would be doing anyway, they suffer fewer penalties from it.

Just eliminate the flavor text, and have the players describe what they are doing when they "Reaping Strike" (ex: I swing my fullblade at him and use the momentum to spin around and hit him in the rib cage with the pommel of my sword) rather than punish the party to get the same simplistic feel of the older editions.

Or, just use essentials fighter and rogue. They seem to entirely be strikers based on basic attacks.

 

[hipnotode]

Just eliminate the flavor text, and have the players describe what they are doing when they "Reaping Strike" (ex: I swing my fullblade at him and use the momentum to spin around and hit him in the rib cage with the pommel of my sword) rather than punish the party to get the same simplistic feel of the older editions.

i agree to an extent, players should fluff there powers to fit there surroundings more, or there characters personality, or there enemy, but in my mind, at-wills are basic attacks that someone else has fluffed and adjusted already and straying too far from the origional flavor text defeats the object of even using an at-will, if you want to do somthign specific, tell you DM, and let him come up with maybe a attack/efect modifier for your basic or somthing.
as i said in my first reply, i totally agree with the not punishing the player. i think letting them augment there basic is a better way to go.

 

[Kingreaper]

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

Call at-will powers "abilities" or "capabilities"

There, done.

At-wills aren't meant to be special. They're meant to be the things you can do. The fact you can do them makes you special, but doing them isn't special.
An at-will is like Robin Hood shooting a guy with an arrow. He's Robin Hood, he does that. Whenever he feels like it.

A Daily is something special, like Robin Hood shooting a guy through each eye with an arrow. He may be Robin Hood, and therefore awesome, but that is spectacular even for him.

If the fact they're called "powers" is causing you a problem (which [given as basic attacks, running, charging, etc. are also powers] may be an issue) call them something else.

 

[tgrt]

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.

For example, lets say a cleric leans on the Lance of Faith. One time may not catch much attention, but if a group of goblins starts taking casualties the others are going to notice the threat and compensate. Now if the rest of the party is dishing out just as bad then no harm no foul. The players are having fun, everyone is dishing out, so I don't see a problem.

Another example, a fighter makes it a habit of using Tide of Iron. It's an effective attack. However, opponents (except the least intelligent) are going to catch-on. This isn't a video game where you can mindlessly just hit the X button. In this situation, I would definitely apply a modifier for predictability.

Additionally, in the past I've always found XP to be a positive motivator. My players knew they got XP not just based on what the books said, but how they played. Sometimes that was a + and sometimes that was a -. I could definitely see a cleric who just continually pressed the X button to do a Lance of Faith getting less XP than the fighter who used Tide of Iron once when there was an opportunity to push the goblin into a deep well.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Another example, a fighter makes it a habit of using Tide of Iron. It's an effective attack. However, opponents (except the least intelligent) are going to catch-on. This isn't a video game where you can mindlessly just hit the X button. In this situation, I would definitely apply a modifier for predictability.

That's liable to be pretty crippling for the monsters, given that they often only have a single attack that doesn't require recharging. And what happens when the PCs succeed on their knowledge check? Or when they fight 2 rooms of identical foes?

 

[tgrt]

That's liable to be pretty crippling for the monsters, given that they often only have a single attack that doesn't require recharging. And what happens when the PCs succeed on their knowledge check? Or when they fight 2 rooms of identical foes?

Explain how it will be crippling for the monsters. My example hinders the particular PC.

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. 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.

 

[Kingreaper]

Explain how it will be crippling for the monsters. My example hinders the particular PC.

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. 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.

So, basically, you've declared that PC at-wills can only be done one way, while NPC at-wills can be done any number of ways.

There's no way a PC could one time be pushing the person on the torso with the shield, and another time be kicking them in the shins while holding the shield near their face.

You have no evidence, or reasoning, for this. You've just declared it because you don't like it when people choose to use the same (somewhat suboptimal) power every round.
Something which only really happens, in actual gameplay, in two situations: 1) you've got a player whose built around the White Lotus feats. 2) your players have run out of encounter powers.

Wait, actually: 3) they're playing an essentials martial class, and only HAVE one attack power.

That's going to go down well with your players...

There is, in the rules, a way that monsters can adapt to Tide of Iron: Stand in places where Tide of Iron's push won't be too annoying.

 

[the Jester]

Explain how it will be crippling for the monsters. My example hinders the particular PC.

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. 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.

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?

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.

Limiting at wills like this is a terrible idea IMHO. It nerfs one of the biggest and best innovations of 4e. If you don't want your party's fighter to have anything to do other than "STAB STAB STAB", I'd look at 2nd or earlier editions as a more suitable ruleset- the whole 4e system is designed with a careful balance between pcs in mind, and if you take away or nerf the at will abilities of only a few classes- and 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.

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.

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. Maybe it's the fighter's intimidating advance that makes the enemy back off. Maybe it's a series of feints that keep moving the foe away from him. As usual with 4e powers, there are a million ways to flavor it. I think it's a terrible idea to say, "Oh, I can't visualize how that would work twice, so it won't." In a case like that I would be awfully tempted to tell the dm, "Don't blame me for your lack of imagination!"

 

[tgrt]

So, basically, you've declared that PC at-wills can only be done one way, while NPC at-wills can be done any number of ways.

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.

You have no evidence, or reasoning, for this. You've just declared it because you don't like it when people choose to use the same (somewhat suboptimal) power every round.

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?

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.

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.

 

[the Jester]

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

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

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

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?

To keep at your specific example, if a human fighter can't push an ogre, can a wizard's thunderwave?