Retraining basic attacks

[SweeneyTodd]

I think this is one of many things in 4e that may not be specifically disallowed by the rulebook yet are obviously not ever going to be allowed in play. I'm fine if they want to issue errata to close all of these loopholes, but I don't think it's in any way necessary. "You should assume the game has a GM and that they are applying common sense" is good enough for me.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I advise you not try silliness like this, lest you fall victim to the new and improved methods of "Rocks fall, you die."

 

[Benly]

I think this is one of many things in 4e that may not be specifically disallowed by the rulebook yet are obviously not ever going to be allowed in play. I'm fine if they want to issue errata to close all of these loopholes, but I don't think it's in any way necessary. "You should assume the game has a GM and that they are applying common sense" is good enough for me.

Sure. Now will every game's GM all rule the same "common sense" way on future mechanics which refer to powers or at-will powers?

For example, suppose a future monster is published which has a curse ability that removes a PC's access to a single power the monster has seen him use. Is the monster able or unable to use this to block the "basic melee attack" power? If not, why not? Did the designers balance the monster with or without that assumption in mind?

This is why it's worth pointing out problems in the RAW when they appear, even if the confusion presently created is easily resolved. The "retraining basic attacks" problem is a red flag indicating problematically-written rules text.

 

[Runestar]

I agree with Benly to some extent. You can't say that it is not a problem because no DM would ever allow it, since the fact that it requires a DM to have to fix it in some manner is essentially an outright admission that there is indeed something wrong with the rules, if they are indeed so ambiguous as to allow such an alternative interpretation which apparently cannot be disproven using the existing rules framework, and must instead be resolved via DM fiat.

Likewise, while it does indeed seem to be a blatant attempt at abusing the rules as written, I am not so sure if it is as bad as it seems. It is no small secret that 4e multiclassing stinks. Very bad. And all the more for paragon multiclassing. Would allowing a PC to trade out his basic attack for another at-will attack power be such a henious sin if it did not break his character, but just served to make paragon multiclassing suck a little less?

This is why I am so leery of people who use "common sense" to justify their stand. It seems like their replies are more of knee-jerk reactions, without even giving due consideration to what sort of impact this may have on game balance, if any.

So, can anyone who opposed this so vehemently humour me and be so kind as to enlighten me about why this might be such a bad idea, or how it would break the game?

 

[Leatherhead]

So, can anyone who opposed this so vehemently humour me and be so kind as to enlighten me about why this might be such a bad idea, or how it would break the game?

I am not necessarily opposed to this, but in this case it would break the game, literally.

Many powers and abilities actually use the basic attacks, including opportunity attacks. If a character swapped out their basic attacks, what would happen when a character was asked to perform a basic attack? Either the trade off is meaningless and you get basic attacks anyway (getting a power for free essentially), or the character becomes disabled in some fashion and can no longer perform basic actions. You might be able to get around the disabling to an extent by swapping out the ranged basic attack for magic missile, but even that isn't a good idea because you would from that point forward never be able to throw anything.

 

[vagabundo]

I think the intent of the rules is clear enough to avoid confusion and the DM's Enforcer-Fist-of-Doom will ensure compliance.

Really, a non-issue methinks.

 

[Runestar]

I am not necessarily opposed to this, but in this case it would break the game, literally.

Well, your example seems more geared towards "idiot-proofing" the game, by preventing the players from engaging in obviously suicidal moves which may screw around with their builds for the worse, and less so of some clearly abusive combination which may end up making the PCs stronger than what they are supposed to be. Not a bad inclination, admirable even, but not quite the answer I was looking for...

I was thinking along the lines of a fighter who would never use ranged attacks swapping out his ranged at-will attack for another at-will attack power. Or a wizard, who would normally never ever engage in melee, to swap out his basic attack for another ranged at-will attack power to round out his arsenal.

Doesn't seem like anything a careful selection of powers can't circumvent...definitely worth re-evaluating, IMO.

 

[Branduil]

I found an awesome loophole! On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so!

 

[Runestar]

I found an awesome loophole! On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so!

Then go ahead by all means....You want our blessings or...?

 

[Obryn]

You can't say that it is not a problem because no DM would ever allow it, since the fact that it requires a DM to have to fix it in some manner is essentially an outright admission that there is indeed something wrong with the rules, if they are indeed so ambiguous as to allow such an alternative interpretation which apparently cannot be disproven using the existing rules framework, and must instead be resolved via DM fiat.

No.

-O