NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5714156" data-attributes="member: 53980">It's certainly an interesting approach, though I'm not certain yet whether I like it or not; I do think it could be feasible without creating inflated skill bonuses.  That should definitely have to be part of the design guidelines.Martial skill powers could give all kinds of non-numeric bonuses.  For example, Cleave might allow a fighter to reduce an object's DR by 5, making it easier to cleave through a door.  Someone with a Leaping Strike power might be able to automatically leap 1 extra square.  Stand the Fallen could grant an ally a reroll on a skill check if the fighter succeeds on the same type of skill check.The Monk is a decent existing example of how this could work.  Every monk power is essentially an attack power combined with a utility power (albeit, usually combat oriented and involving tactical movement).  Obviously, more variety would be necessary but I believe the monk demonstrates that this is viable.My biggest concern about this approach is that I think it could very easily feel artificial if the design isn't good.  Unlike some things, I don't think mediocre design would cut it here.  The bar would have to be set fairly high.  If my Pyromancer has burning hands, angor's scorcher, and fireball, will the designers be able to come up with a varied and interesting utilities based on each?  Fire finger cantrip three times per encounter isn't going to cut it.My other concern is that it might significantly limit player options.  If my fighter concept is a berserker who fearlessly leaps across the battlefield and carves through doors like they're made of cardboard, why am I forced to choose between Cleave and Leaping Strike?  My concept calls for the attack from Leaping Strike and the utility of Cleave; it seems arbitrary for the designers to tell me otherwise, particularly if my combination is as balanced as their combination.A different approach might be taking the best of both worlds.  Explain how attack powers may be used for utility, but retain utility powers as separate from attacks.  Then my swordmage can use his Teleporting Blade power to sever a rope halfway across the room, because the target is listed as creature OR object.  My fighter, on the other hand, could have both his leaping attack and door smashing utility.  If the utility of Magic Missile is a sacred cow, the target description would state "Creature only".  Attack powers remain attack powers, and utilities remain utilities, but attacks gain a lesser degree of utility as well (just as many utility powers will see use in combat).  Alternately, more explanation in the DMG as to how attack powers are intended to be used outside of combat could work.  The bag of rats rule is a good one, but there's a fair amount of disagreement as to whether X constitutes an instance of that rule.  A few detailed examples could resolve those arguments once and for all without much trouble.Definitely very limited (or better yet no) direct skill bonuses from utilities though.  I agree that that makes the math too wonky.</blockquote>

Verification