Sloppy Design of Basic Attacks

[Dausuul]

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.

Yeah, I find myself leaning this way too. The distinction between "basic attack" and "non-basic attack" should go away. It should just be "attack."

I don't even care if it's at-will. If you want to use a daily* attack on an OA, go for it.

[SIZE=-2]*This post should not be taken as an endorsement of daily attack powers in 5E.[/SIZE]

 

[BobTheNob]

I actually prefer the way essentials did it with the knight and slayer (and rogue) where everything was a basic attack with riders. Martial characters sorta started making sense to me.

But thats from a player perspecitve. The OP was talking about clarification of monster stat blocks. Then again, thats what I see my prefered approach being. Clarify martial abilities in line with monster stat blocks i.e. make it about the basic attack.

 

[Riley]

I want the phrase 'basic attack' to die, die, die.

I can't think of a less inspirIng bit of terminology than 'I make a basic attack.'

Some attacks can do damage and nothing else. Some attacks can do damage plus something else.

I'd much rather call them all attacks, as Dausuul says above. Any riders could be rolled in to the attack descriptions, or presented as conditional effects that can be invoked after a successful attack.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Er, no, it really doesn't. A solo monster with a stun rider on its basic attack is not a big deal. Even an elite isn't that much stronger. How often does any given monster get an opportunity attack? Once or twice a combat? And the ability to get a rider on a charge just means it's a little more mobile--it gets to move twice its speed instead of its speed and still attack, big whoop. Dominated attacks? That's the far corner of a corner case.

This is a non-issue IMO. You may not agree, but you certainly haven't nullified all possible counter-arguments.

 

[MortalPlague]

Right now, there are a lot of "riders" on basic attacks so that monsters are more interesting.

I'm with you on this one. In a game I just played, I was playing a cleric. I opted to take an opportunity attack, since I'd just boosted my AC, so that I could get to an ally and heal them. The monster made an opportunity attack... against fortitude. I think it also dazed on the attack. It wasn't even an important villain or notable monster; just a regular footsoldier.

Riders and alternate defense attacks should be used very judiciously on basic attacks. I think a monster unloading a condition on a basic attack should be an indication that this monster is seriously threatening; the same way threatening reach is handled in 4th Ed.

 

[MortalPlague]

A solo monster with a stun rider on its basic attack is not a big deal.

I'd suggest that any monster with an at-will stun is a poorly-designed monster...

 

[erleni]

I'd suggest that any monster with an at-will stun is a poorly-designed monster...

Especially if it is a close burst/blast attack.

 

[MortalPlague]

Especially if it is a close burst/blast attack.

That's just begging for a TPK!