Stances, Tricks and Aspects working with At-Wills

[andarilhor]

Stances, Tricks and Aspects working with At-Wills

I am working in a houserule to make many of the essential features became options for the core classes, but keep blocked by the total transformation of the martial classes in the essentials books.

I am thinking of simply houserule to allow players to take the Stances, Tricks and Aspects by giving up their first level daily power, and at each level they would gain a daily power they get a extra stance, trick or aspect instead.

That's too much unbalancing for you guys?

And, one more thing, in the case above, a fighter will have the classic 2 at-will powers and 2 fighter stances. Would be too unbalancing allow the stances affect his at-will power as it affects his basic melee attacks?

I would like to see your opinion.

Thanks in advance.

 

[the Jester]

Sooo you're intending to allow fighters et. al. to mix their Essentials replacements for at wills with actual at will fighter (et. al.) powers?

Yeah, my instinct is that's overpowered by a significant amount (without looking at the books).

What's the purpose here? Do you have a specific goal in mind? Is there some reason a pc can't just either-or or mix using multiclass feats?

 

[andarilhor]

Hi Jester,

My goal is to make the essential features became options to core class characters (without the need of paying a feat for that).

Right now I have 3 ideas how to do that with the stances, tricks and aspects, let's take the fighter as example:

Idea 1: You give up your at-will powers and daily power at 1st level to gain 2 stances instead.

Idea 2: You give up your at-will powers to gain one stance and your daily to gain another.

Idea 3: You give up only your daily power to gain two stances

Besides Idea 3 is the most unbalancing, it's the more simple idea of all, so it's the more liking to me. But, that let's the fighter with 2 at-wills and 2 stances, so my question is if that is TOO unbalancing and if allowing the stance to affect the at-wills as they were MBA is overpowering too much.

What you think?

 

[willows]

Stances are just the Essentials way of camouflaging At-wills. By allowing them to stack with At-Wills, you're basically doing the same thing as saying, "Sure rogues, you can use two At-Wills at once. Deft Strike+Positioning Strike FTW!"

 

[andarilhor]

Willows, at first I thinked like you, but the ranger (hunter) can use two at-will at once, combining one at-will attack they have (which affects their basic attacks) and one aspect of the wild (same here), using Aimed Shot while into the Aspect of the Dancing Serpent, for example.

So, If they can, why the fighter and rogue can't?

 

[Stalker0]

I think the better option would have them switch their encounter power with the stance. The encounter powers are more frequent and provides a closer trade in power to a stance than a daily one.

 

[andarilhor]

I think the better option would have them switch their encounter power with the stance. The encounter powers are more frequent and provides a closer trade in power to a stance than a daily one.

But in essentials martial classes the encounter power it's switched by the Power Strike/Backstab power.

 

[the Jester]

I just plain think this is a bad idea.

There are a lot of differences between the E-class structures and the "classic" 4e class structures; I think they go too deep to trust to an even swap approach.

Using feats adds a cost to the swap, and I think there's a reason for that- an at-will isn't worth much less than a stance, but it is worth a feat's worth less since you get its benefits more often than those of a typical at will. (Opportunity attacks, mark-triggered attacks, etc, I'm lookin' at you.)

 

[Thorvald_Grimbjorn]

You could perhaps turn the Stances/Aspects into standard At-Will attacks? Except for the ones that simply add damage without any cost.

Willows, at first I thinked like you, but the ranger (hunter) can use two at-will at once, combining one at-will attack they have (which affects their basic attacks) and one aspect of the wild (same here), using Aimed Shot while into the Aspect of the Dancing Serpent, for example.

So, If they can, why the fighter and rogue can't?

Because the Hunter's Shots aren't true At-Wills, they're class features disguised as At-Wills for ease of use.

 

[andarilhor]

Because the Hunter's Shots aren't true At-Wills, they're class features disguised as At-Wills for ease of use.

Can you explain this a little better?