Sloppy Design of Basic Attacks

[Infiniti2000]

Granted, nothing about the action types are set in stone, but, assuming that there's a similar "basic attack" mechanism in D&D Next, one thing I don't want to see is the continued prevalence of sloppy design for monster basic attacks. Right now, there are a lot of "riders" on basic attacks so that monsters are more interesting. That's fine on its own, but it makes basic attacks for those monsters sometimes too powerful. What's really wrong about this, though, is that it seems clear to me at least that this is often done for convenience, meaning that the designer doesn't want to bother with creating a new non-basic standard action attack so that the basic can be left as less powerful. Instead, you have monsters that can do very powerful riders on opportunity attacks, charges, dominated attacks, etc. I want the designer to consciously choose "Yes, this rider is balanced in every case a basic attack is used."

 

[Dausuul]

IMO, having the rider apply to all attacks is good design. Having to distinguish between "regular attack" and "basic attack" is a nuisance. Combining them reduces the amount of stuff the DM has to keep track of, it's more intuitive for the players fighting the thing, and in almost all cases it makes more sense conceptually. As long as they take it into account when balancing monsters, and I have no reason to think they don't, I'm in favor of putting riders on basic attacks.

 

[mkill]

That sounds like a very specific corner case. It sounds like you're asking for an indirect nerf of the Essentials Mage, because I can't think of another situation where this would come up.

Here is a hint: Your player doesn't see the monster stat block. You can simply change a monster's basic attack to something less effective if this is bothering you. I don't think it's fair, though, because dominate + hit needs two d20 rolls to hit, which makes it pretty swingy.

Oh, and nobody outside WotC knows whether this could even be an issue in 5E, so I think you're in the wrong forum.

 

[FireLance]

For that matter, some 4e PCs get them, too. Essentials knights and slayers get riders on their basic attacks from their stances.

 

[the Jester]

I disagree that it's sloppy design; I rather prefer it.

 

[keterys]

I do think the game would be improved if basics were more regulated. I think I'd have two easy restrictions:

1) Basics should _never_ be your best option
2) Basics should _never_ negate an enemy's turn, except via hp loss

So, for example, an opportunity attack shouldn't daze, slide, and prone someone. Items and feats shouldn't add tons of accuracy and damage just to basics. Etc.

If a class wants to not make decisions about its attacks (ex: Slayer, Knight, etc) that's fine, but some of those bonuses shouldn't be triggered by basics.
Ditto for monsters. Basically, I want them to _think_ about what they're doing and not injure the game by thinking on one hand "Oh, they're just basics" and on the other "Just toss everything onto its basic"

 

[Sunseeker]

Depends on the creature IMO. Some creatures should always have riders on their attacks, because either they're always using that power or they have no control over that power. Other creatures, yes they should, but at the same time, this is something I can fix at the table. If I'm doing a "basic attack" with a monster that has a power rider and I don't feel that rider should always happen, I just roll a d6 to see if it happens. The range of 1-6 that I pick for it to happen is just my opinion on how often I feel the monster should use that power.

I don't think that every monster is going to be perfect out the door, everyone's going to be unhappy with something. I'm perfectly okay with doing some retuning on a monster at the table.

 

[delericho]

IMO, a basic attack should be just that - basic. So, you make an attack roll, and if you hit you do some damage. Which should probably be expressed as 1dX +Y, so you're not rolling lots of dice for that either.

Attacks that move opponents, that apply conditions, or cause ongoing damage should be either more advanced attacks or powers in their own right.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That sounds like a very specific corner case. It sounds like you're asking for an indirect nerf of the Essentials Mage, because I can't think of another situation where this would come up.

No, I'm not, because I don't know what the Essentials Mage is. I don't have Essentials. I'm talking about monster basic attacks, nothing more.

Here is a hint: Your player doesn't see the monster stat block. You can simply change a monster's basic attack to something less effective if this is bothering you.

That's really a non sequitur. We're talking about the design of the monster block. If I feel the design is poor and offer a suggestion that it be addressed in the next version, then you can't tell me to just shut TFU and house rule it.

Oh, and nobody outside WotC knows whether this could even be an issue in 5E, so I think you're in the wrong forum.

Definitely not. I'm addressing a potential design problem and I think those interested in D&D Next design should consider this issue. I can certainly appreciate differing opinions, but I think even one example of a basic attack that causes stunning or dazing (or worse) nullifies any counter argument.

 

[SKyOdin]

I have to agree with those people who think that the riders on basic attacks are a good thing. While I think that the stance mechanism for Slayers and Knights is a little clunky, I think the fact it allows them to take advantage of their stance effects on opportunity attacks and granted basic attacks to be a good thing. I really wouldn't mind if the difference between "basic attack" and "at-will attack power" was completely eliminated. You would need to make some adjustments for balance reasons, but I think it would simplify the game.

I never really understood why basic attacks had to be so simple anyways.