Stances, Tricks and Aspects working with At-Wills

[andarilhor]

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

I was thinking of make the opposite: turn the martial at-will into stances/tricks/aspects to see i would work...

 

[FireLance]

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?

The simple answer is that classes are balanced with each other as a package, not on a power-to-power basis.

The slightly more complicated answer is that the hunter ranger at-will attacks are probably slightly less potent compared to the at-will attacks of other controller type classes to make up for the additional effect from the Aspects of the Wild. For example, aimed shot is only situationally useful, when attacking an enemy with cover or concealment, and rapid shot takes an attack roll penalty compared to most other controllers' at-will area attacks. Clever shot is less clear cut, but when compared to a bladesinger's bladespells (which can produce the same effects), the bladespells deal extra damage in addition to the effect.

As to the original question, I think that swapping at-will stances for at-will powers is the closest in terms of balance.

 

[Psikus]

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?

Hunters are controllers. The controller role benefits are blurry to say the least, but basically translate to "you get no features but your powers are better". So, where the fighter gains a defender aura and the slayer/thief/scout gain different extra damage mechanics, the hunter gets the ability to use an above-average attack by combining two effects.

I think the best way to achieve what you suggest is to allow PCs to replace both their at-wills for two stances - without changing encounters or dailies.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Your final option is to just ask your players if they are willing to playtest your houserule for a bit to see if it works. If they say yes, then play the game with the houserule you wanted. The only thing that matters is that your PCs are all relatively balanced with each other... because if it turns out it makes ALL your PCs more powerful... it doesn't mean that it's a bad houserule for your game, it just means you need to up the power of your monsters a bit. Which is one of the easiest solutions to accomplish.

 

[Neverfate]

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!"

Actually quite wrong on what those stances are. Essentials stances are a way of camouflaging Dailies

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I don't think there's any blanket statement that can be made. Each class is a unique situation. Some stances might replace an at-will for some classes with little difference. Others may not.

I'd say you'd have to analyze each class and determine what the swap is worth. Of course what you'll probably find is there is some build for most classes that will gain a whole bunch from specific stances, and many others that won't gain much.

In general I'd say stance+mba is better than an at-will. So MAYBE a swap out of 2 at-will for 2 stances plus daily in theory might be a decent baseline. I still suspect you'll find some cases where some silly nasty builds can be constructed though. My guess is this is the primary reason there is no way to do it officially. That is beyond just why bother.

 

[mkill]

Sorry to activate voice of reason mode here, but did you consider time vs. benefit here? How many players do you have? Five? How many of them want to play fighter/rogue/ranger? One? Two? How many of them want some classic/essentials hybrid? Zero? Maybe one?

The point I'm trying to make is that as GM, it's often not necessary to rewrite the rules. Sure, it's fun, but the time is better spend developing game world, plot, NPCs, monsters, encounters...

Giving essentials stances to a classic fighter could work... maybe. But that's something you can worry about if a player at your table asks for it. My take would be to allow it under the condition that it's tested for a session or two. If it doesn't work, the player has to rebuild his PC.

The question is why anybody would even want to use the at-will stances with a PHB fighter. Many of the at-wills they have are very good. On top, there are tons of ways for them to get at-will as MBA. And they can get really good stances with their utilities, encounters and dailies, which don't work with at-will stances.

 

[andarilhor]

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

I am thinking of making the contrary: turning tha fighter/ranger/rogue at-wills into stances/tricks/aspects, making the martial classes mostly based into MBAs.

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

Maybe the Hunter's Shots will be a option for the Hunter's Quarry feature.

 

[Dezarith]

I am thinking of making the contrary: turning tha fighter/ranger/rogue at-wills into stances/tricks/aspects, making the martial classes mostly based into MBAs.



You have to think if you have a warlord in your party( Or any other leader for that matter) It would make them ALOT better.