Every character has a basic at-will power, which is a standard melee or standard ranged attack. The two at-will powers from the class should basically be like standard attacks with some added extra.
At-will powers should useful in many situations, and not depend on special circumstances. For example, a power that does extra damage against undead is not useful at-will.
Quick to resolve: As they will be used a lot, at-will powers should not involve things that require extra time or bookkeeping: no ongoing damage, no effects with saving throws, no secondary attacks that you can only use when the first attack hits...
The designers tried at-will attacks that deal less damage than a standard attack in exchange for the extra effect, namely Careful Attack (Ranger), Sure Strike (Fighter) and Furious Smash (Warlord). But those three
As it turns out, doing almost no damage is pretty frustrating, no matter how good the other effect is.
Use the class main ability score for attack and damage bonus. As an option, make the extra effect dependent on a secondary ability score.
The Extra
The specific extra effect depends on the role of the class:
Leader: boost an ally
Defender: add to an ally's defense, hinder an enemy from attacking allies
Striker: Deal more damage, hit more reliably, get into a better position to strike, retreat into safety
Controller: Attack enemy groups, disturb enemy tactics
In Detail
Obviously, every at-will attack is a Level 1 attack power.
Keywords are: the power source, weapon or implement, an element type if applicable (fire etc.)
Action: Always a standard action
Range: In general, melee for defenders, melee or ranged for strikers and leaders, ranged, close blast and area burst for controllers. This largely depends on the class. It can be quite interesting to add a bit of variety here and create, for example, a melee power for wizards. Also note the Swordmage, whose at-will powers include a ranged and a close burst power, unusual for a defender.
Attack: Use the classes main attack attribute / one of the two attack attributes. An interesting variant would be to use a secondary attribute, such as Cha for a Rogue, for alternative builds.
Weapon powers should attack AC, Implement powers (that don't get the weapon proficiency bonus) should attack Will, Ref or Fort, which are generally lower.
A power that allows to attack Will/Ref/Fort with a weapon is possible (see Piercing Strike of the Rogue), but that is already good enough that you don't need another extra.
Hit: Weapon powers should do 1[W] + attack attribute damage, plus an extra effect. Don't forget to bump the damage to 2[W] at 21st level.
Miss: (optional) One way to make an extra, give the attack some damage even on a miss.
Special: (optional) Another way for an extra is to make the at-will attack usable in situations where it is normally not. The most powerful is probably a standard melee attack. Alternatives are opportunity attacks, ranged standard attacks or charges. A special could also allow to make an attack without penalty under certain conditions: blinded, prone, etc.
The special can also include additional effects with a weapon choice, such as with heavy blades, when wearing a shield etc. For fighters, make sure the attack is still useful with a different weapon.
Getting Ideas
So, how to find an idea for a new at-will attack?
- Play the class. Sooner or later, you'll think... Ah, it would be cool if I could...
- Address problems: Many of the Warlord at-wills are just not worth it compared to a standard attack.
- Give new options: Make an attack that is more defensive than existing ones, or does more damage, or uses a different energy type, or keys of an underused secondary attribute, or gives some mobility options to a class that does not have them so much...
- Think of iconic actions from movies that are not well-represented in the rules yet.
- fighter's shield bash seems overpowered: 2 attacks mean 2 marks. (unlike cleave, which only marks the primairy target)
- cleric's at-will implement at will powers are against reflex (making an at-will power against fortitude will probably make all clerics take one power against reflex and one power against fortitude ...)
- warlords Veteran's Strike is overpowered (statiscically reflex defence is 2 lower then AC defence - ... the fact that its an Int attack vs reflex, with a mellee weapon (proficiency bonus!) makes it a must have for any tacklord)
- rangers Off-hand parry should require wielding 2 weapons, no?
- warlocks are stuck with there at will powers (eldrich blast + pact). so with any additional at will powers it should be noted how they react with it ('warlock can choose this instead of edritch blast','as part of the star pact')
Eldritch blast is a class feature and shouldn't count against limit of 2 at-will, right?
off topic
Yes it does: Rules as intended (by consensus of the people of char-op IIRC) is that a lvl 1 warlock (no special feats/racial abilities(like human)/...) has 2 at-will powers powers: eldritch blast and the power from the pact.
(rule of thumb: eldritch blast isn't a class feature: its not under class features, its under lvl 1 attack powers. (unlike the cantrips,lay on hands, channel divinity, etc).
(rule of thumb: eldritch blast isn't a class feature: its not under class features, its under lvl 1 attack powers. (unlike the cantrips,lay on hands, channel divinity, etc).
- fighter's shield bash seems overpowered: 2 attacks mean 2 marks. (unlike cleave, which only marks the primairy target)
Being able to mark two targets at once is good, but not overpowered. Consider that a fighter only gets one interrupt per turn, no matter how many targets he marked. There are also a number of other ways to mark several targets, such as higher-level powers or the dragonborn class feature. It makes the power good, but not overwhelming. I'm thinking about turning down the damage a bit, though, maybe 1[W] for the weapon and Str for the shield. It would still be very good for defensive fighter builds.
- cleric's at-will implement at will powers are against reflex (making an at-will power against fortitude will probably make all clerics take one power against reflex and one power against fortitude ...)
Swordmages, Wizards, Warlocks and Rogues can also target different defenses with the right at-will power choice. There is nothing here that would make the Cleric overpowered.
- warlords Veteran's Strike is overpowered (statiscically reflex defence is 2 lower then AC defence - ... the fact that its an Int attack vs reflex, with a mellee weapon (proficiency bonus!) makes it a must have for any tacklord)
It's good, but remember that Int is a secondary ability score, at it is difficult to keep both Int and Str at max levels. This power can be good, for some builds, but not necessarily for all. For a pretty normal Str 18 Int 14 tactical Warlord, there is no advantage.
- rangers Off-hand parry should require wielding 2 weapons, no?
It does in the fluff, but I should write that in the rules, too. Good catch.
- warlocks are stuck with there at will powers (eldrich blast + pact). so with any additional at will powers it should be noted how they react with it ('warlock can choose this instead of edritch blast','as part of the star pact')
Good point. I'll address that.
Eldritch blast is a class feature and shouldn't count against limit of 2 at-will, right?
No. Check your book again, it is one of the two at-will attack powers you get, and as per PHB you have to choose it.
- Fiery Whip seems good for the infernal pact (renaming it to abyssal pact, as Fiery whip is very Balor like).
- Distracting Glamour seems nice for the fey or star pact (since starlocks will have both high charisma and consitution, it could be nice for starlocks to have a choice of at will power)
That was the idea. For some reason that got lost on the way from idea to writeup, I added it now.
As for the Star pact, I don't have a power yet, but I'll think of something.
Warlord
For a pretty normal Str 18 Int 14 tactical Warlord, there is no advantage.
and for a pretty normal Str 16 Int 16 tactical Warlord?
The assumption that the player will have 18 STR is quite big: the only way to get it is (in PHB-core)
- being a dragonborn, and putting 16 in it
- using point buy (and seriously messing up your other stats (do you have enough statpoints left for con?) )
- oh, and rolling [4-1]d6 (which is fround upon my most people as in 4e it can make a huge difference)
18/14 are not really stats for a pretty normal Eladrin or Tiefling taclord (or at least thats my oppinion - currently playing a 16/16 dragonborn taclord)
Swordmages, Wizards, Warlocks and Rogues can also target different defenses with the right at-will power choice.
Sure, but the cleric doesn't. the fact that you add such a power will make the cleric more powerfull. this means my comment making an at-will power against fortitude will probably make all clerics take one power against reflex and one power against fortitude still is valid. And adding a power that I think most of the subbuilds of a class (here the wisdom cleric) will take, makes it in my book overshadowing.
and for a pretty normal Str 16 Int 16 tactical Warlord?
The assumption that the player will have 18 STR is quite big: the only way to get it is (in PHB-core)
- being a dragonborn, and putting 16 in it
- using point buy (and seriously messing up your other stats (do you have enough statpoints left for con?) )
18/14 are not really stats for a pretty normal Eladrin or Tiefling taclord (or at least thats my oppinion - currently playing a 16/16 dragonborn taclord)
Well, looks like we're at a point where I say 'it's ok' and you say 'it's not'.
As I see it, the power is a tradeoff: You need a high Int, which not every Warlord has (at least it's easier make a useful build with a high Str and low Int than the other way around), on the other hand you get an attack against a defense that is lower for many monsters. With the right build and group (melee rogue), this is a very mighty power, for others not. That is good design as I see it. If it was "teh uber" in any situation it would be bad.
Sure, but the cleric doesn't. the fact that you add such a power will make the cleric more powerful. this means my comment making an at-will power against fortitude will probably make all clerics take one power against reflex and one power against fortitude still is valid. And adding a power that I think most of the subbuilds of a class (here the wisdom cleric) will take, makes it in my book overshadowing.
The defense you attack is not the only thing to consider. You assume that every player memorizes the monster manual to know which monster has lower Ref or lower Fort. I can only speak for my group, but we don't have a player who does.
You need to see the whole picture. Take other factors into account: The Inflict Light Wounds power has a much shorter range than the other at-wills (only 2 squares). That means you need a much more melee-capable build. As a trade-off, it does not provoke OAs as a Close Burst.
Then, the bonus it gives is not very good: +2 Fort is good against some monsters, but it's only one of 4 defenses. It's attacked in maybe one in 5 cases. Many clerics will fare better with an AC-boosting power.
As I see it, the power is a tradeoff: You need a high Int, which not every Warlord has (at least it's easier make a useful build with a high Str and low Int than the other way around),
bolded the (IMO) incorrect part: you need a Int < Str-2
(for 18/14 its a tie, for 18/16 or 16/14 is a statistical +1, for 16/16 its a statistical +2)
Any race with a +2 STR or +2 INT , like dragonborn, eladrin, human and tiefling can all be 16/16 with the standard array. While only races with +2 STR could make a 18/14 taclord. with the standard array:
with point buy, other races can also be a 16/16 with only a low cost. to get 18/14 will cost more.)
With the right build and group (melee rogue), this is a very mighty power, for others not.
oh, you know a melleer that does not benefit from flanking? (this power gives ALL mellee allies +2 to attack, AND things like steak attack).
even if you're correct, that the attack is compensated, should I compare this power to Lance of Faith? (note how 1d8 the damage is of a longsword (+3 to attack ... and refl/AC only differ a statistical 2)
The defense you attack is not the only thing to consider. You assume that every player memorizes the monster manual to know which monster has lower Ref or lower Fort. I can only speak for my group, but we don't have a player who does.
never thought:
- hey this is a slow moving zombie ... perhaps something vs reflex save?
- hey this is a archer ... perhaps NOT something vs reflex save?
you don't need to memorize your MM to guess those things.
and after a few rounds of combat, you'll probably notice if it has high reflex saves (if you roll a 14 and its a miss ... try going for an other defence ...)
Then, the bonus it gives is not very good: +2 Fort is good against some monsters, but it's only one of 4 defenses. It's attacked in maybe one in 5 cases. Many clerics will fare better with an AC-boosting power.
true
oh, btw: the power is lacking element (is it fire or necrotic?)
...
*thinking* ... OK, how about:
I see two problems with that writeup.
First of all, it suffers from the same problem like Furious Smash: The Warlord is forced to make an attack that is weaker than a standard attack, only to make others shine. Even if that attack gives some humongous advantage to someone else, it's still frustrating for the Warlord player. That's why I prefer at-will powers that give the Warlord 1[W]+Str and some advantage to another player.
Yes, that's a choice you have to make. Part of being a leader, specificity a warlord, if you want to roll the big damage dice, then be a striker. And it's not a humongous advantage to someone, it's a small advantage to everyone, something the warlord now lacks.
As for the effect: It's too good. It gives the whole group combat advantage at will, every round. The biggest effect is that eliminates the necessity for the rogue to a) go into melee where he can be killed or b) bother with Stealth. He can just get out his crossbow and rely on the Warlord to secure combat advantage, i.e. sneak attack damage. In my writeup, the Rogue still has to be in melee.
The warlord is giving up his weapon damage for something the rogue can mostly get by himself. It would defiantly be a choice option with a rogue in the party, but i don't see it as being overpowered.
Fighter
(with 1 attack, cleave deals [W]+2 STR; to deal this with dodged persuit, you 'dd need 2 succesfull attacks). my advice: make the secondairy attack vs reflex or fortitude
Chilling Revelation is IMO to powerfull (the condition is to offen). + its a cold spell (making it available for the combat advantage combo)
Pixie Dust Ray gains 2 effects? (note how loss of concealment can be extremely powerfull against some enemies ...)
Black Blood copy paste fault in the special block: star pact?
oh, and an other idea
I'm also sure we'll see more energy-related feats soon. I find the necrotic + psychic combination rather dubious, it looks more like "ok, you're the two left-overs, have fun with each other". But then, I didn't like acid + cold either.
Fighter
-The "-alternately-" wasn't meant to provide the Fighter with an option, rather, it was meant to provide the writers with an option. I wasn't sure which method would be better, since there are times when stopping someone from shifting (since CC doesn't stop movement like OAs do) is a good thing.
The second attack is an immediate action? I think it should be. Please clarify.
-I hadn't really meant it to be, as that would stop the fighter from using CC. But it does need an action, I was considering making it a free action.
Damage should be 1d6 + Cha, as with Dire Radiance and Hellish Rebuke. I'd also like to see "encounter, recharging or daily attack power" instead of "non-basic attack". It's still good enough in that case IMHO.
-Sorry, I'd thought those did 1d8, not 1d6. I'll change it immediately (and I'll change the Fey Power as well).
As written, the power damages allies too (any adjacent creature). This may or may not be intended.
-Intended. It seems only Cleric and Paladin powers target 'enemies'. Arcane powers seem to target 'creatures'.
The other powers had triggers that keeps the enemy from / punishes the enemy for approaching the Warlock or attacking him. This power has a trigger that is under the control of the Warlock's allies, or even the Warlock himself (use an Action point). That makes it too easy to trigger the bonus damage. I would not allow this power if I was DM.
-I chose this because I felt it was very Striker-ish, rather than controler-ish. However, the damage was meant to be a step down from the other abilities, but wasn't because I used the wrong dice for the Star and Infernal pact powers.
The poison vulnerability is interesting, but it takes a special build to really take advantage of it. I'm not aware of any class that freely dishes out poison damage, at least in the PHB. It might have good synergy with items, but at-will powers should have a more general design in mind, not synergy with specific items.
-Perhaps I ought to add the vulnerability before the damage, allowing the warlock to use it as well as any allies. Or it could be a vulnerability to... what kind of damage do weapons deal... 'physical'?
Dogged Pursuit one of the attacks should be more easy to hit
(with 1 attack, cleave deals [W]+2 STR; to deal this with dodged persuit, you 'dd need 2 succesfull attacks). my advice: make the secondairy attack vs reflex or fortitude.
-You think so? I figured that allowing it to deal all the damage to one creature (as opposed to splitting it between two adjacent creatures) made up for that. Also, meaning it to be a free action attack, allowing the fighter to still CC that turn, seemed to be fair. I guess you and mkill can fight it out.
Chilling Revelation is IMO to powerfull (the condition is to offen). + its a cold spell (making it available for the combat advantage combo)
-I hadn't thought of the combat advantage combo (which I think is stupid and don't intend to allow. What makes cold damage so special? Why aren't their Firetouched or Deathtouched or Poisontouched feats? It's moronically limited by a design desire to create a false uniqueness, much like the +1 to Damage type A and Damage type B that are thematically inconsistent feats). But you're right, as written it makes it unpleasantly dangerous.
Pixie Dust Ray gains 2 effects? (note how loss of concealment can be extremely powerfull against some enemies ...)
-True, but not to all enemies. Once I adjust the damage down a die you'll see that it's consistent. It's the easiest extra damage to trigger, but deals less than the ones that are harder to trigger.
Black Blood copy paste fault in the special block: star pact?
-Total copy-paste error.
Chilling Revelation is IMO to powerfull (the condition is to offen). + its a cold spell (making it available for the combat advantage combo)
-I hadn't thought of the combat advantage combo (which I think is stupid and don't intend to allow. What makes cold damage so special? Why aren't their Firetouched or Deathtouched or Poisontouched feats? It's moronically limited by a design desire to create a false uniqueness, much like the +1 to Damage type A and Damage type B that are thematically inconsistent feats). But you're right, as written it makes it unpleasantly dangerous.
I agree with you on that part. The Wintertouched + Lasting Frost Combo just happens to use cold damage, and there is no reason we won't see future broken combos for other types of energy with the next pile of splatbooks.
DMs who are worried about it should nerf either Wintertouched or Lasting Frost, but there is no need to address it in unrelated powers that just happen to deal cold damage.
Secondary attacks are part of the same action that you used to activate the power. No further actions are needed. An example would be the Wizard spell Acid Arrow. It has a secondary attack against all opponents adjacent to the target.
The key here is the phrase "Effect: If the target moves before the beginning of your next turn you make a secondary attack."
It's not a secondary attack that happens on the PC's turn like Acid Arrow. It works like an immediate interupt that comes into play if the enemy moves, except that it's not labeled as such. Compare how the interrupt of Combat Superiority is written.
Other powers, notably Warlock at-wills, have "damage if enemy does X" effects, but here it is not a secondary attack, it's automatic damage.
As the power is written now, the Fighter attacks outside of his own turn, but there is no information on what type of action that is. To prevent any misinterpretations of the power, the point needs to be cleared up.
The "cannot shift" effect is somewhat contradicting the Fighter's Combat Superiority, as it triggers on a shift. If you can just nix the shifting altogether at will, there is no need for this class feature. Apart from that, decent power.
actually you can't nix shifting: shifting provokes a normal attack, not an oppertunity attack, and thus does not stop movement.
pehaps you could make it
shift provokes a oppertunity attack (this does not stack with ).
actually you can't nix shifting: shifting provokes a normal attack, not an opportunity attack, and thus does not stop movement.
Nope, you're right in 3rd edition, wrong in 4th. Reread 4th edition PHB p. 290. "After the opportunity attack, the creature resumes it's action".
An opportunity attack only stops movement if you reduce the creature below 0 hp, i.e. if you kill it.
So, it doesn't matter if it's an immediate interrupt for a basic attack or an opportunity attack, both work the same, and none stops movement.
To go back to the at-will power writeup that prevents shifts, it's better than the class feature and that's why I think it's too strong (it's okay for an encounter power, though).
Nope, you're right in 3rd edition, wrong in 4th. Reread 4th edition PHB p. 290.
fighter, combat superiority class feature: "An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack."
specific overrides general.
fighter, combat superiority class feature: "An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack."
specific overrides general.
Ah, true... I never noticed. Must be because the only fighter we had used a polearm and didn't do many OAs.
I should add a Wizard power, we don't have one yet.
- Trip -
"prone" is a condition that can be pretty nasty, especially when you have a sticky defender like the fighter around. Note that the at-wills from the PHB do not cause out status effects, with the exception of "slowed".
So, what you have is an at-will power with low damage but a condition that is reserved for higher-level encounter powers. I can easily see fighters, rogues and rangers using it as their default attack power, especially with its high chance to hit.
As this is a free at-will for dex-based and melee classes, what do you give other classes like the Wizard in exchange?
To fix it, I'd greatly reduce the chance to hit and put it at Dex-4 vs. Reflex. That way, you can try to knock the enemy prone with a simple at-will, but it's risky and in most cases you'll be safer just hitting it. This also opens a gap for an "Improved Trip" feat which gives a better chance to hit.
"prone" is a condition that can be pretty nasty, especially when you have a sticky defender like the fighter around. Note that the at-wills from the PHB do not cause out status effects, with the exception of "slowed".
Prone isn't so bad as it used to be. Now it's just a move (minor) action to get up, no OA or anything like that. I agree with you though, that it shouldn't do weapon damage. Str damage is a nice option instead. I like your version of Disarm, but not so much trip. It is, after all, no very dangerous anymore, just spend a move (minor) action to get back up and attack. You can sacrifice your standard action for another move action and escape the fighter. It's pretty tame nowadays.
Prone isn't so bad as it used to be. Now it's just a move (minor) action to get up, no OA or anything like that.
I disagree: the wizard - currently the only controller - has an at will power that slows the target (speed 2) ... this means the target can still move 6 squares and attack (move + charge). + slow does not grant combat advantage.
IMO prone should be used in encounter powers, not at will powers .
I disagree: the wizard - currently the only controller - has an at will power that slows the target (speed 2) ... this means the target can still move 6 squares and attack (move + charge). + slow does not grant combat advantage.
IMO prone should be used in encounter powers, not at will powers .
That slow power also does a pretty piece of damage, and can be done at range. That's why I figure a trip isn't so bad. However, perhaps you'd find it more agreeable if it didn't do any damage at all? After all, is says trip not 'knock down'. If you sacrificed any damage dealing to force them to waste a move action each it'd be useful, but not over-useful.
The other option would to make it a common encounter ability. Everyone can do it, it doesn't take up a power, but you can only do it once per encounter. It's quite an idea.
However, perhaps you'd find it more agreeable if it didn't do any damage at all? After all, is says trip not 'knock down'. If you sacrificed any damage dealing to force them to waste a move action each it'd be useful, but not over-useful.
doesn't that do against the general idea of 4th edition, where everything does damage?
The other option would to make it a common encounter ability. Everyone can do it, it doesn't take up a power, but you can only do it once per encounter. It's quite an idea.
OK, but not instead of a melee basic attack (that would break oppertunity attacks). make it a normal power (like melee basic attack)
doesn't that do against the general idea of 4th edition, where everything does damage?
Yeah... but really, I don't like that philosophy. Not everything has to deal damage.
OK, but not instead of a melee basic attack (that would break oppertunity attacks). make it a normal power (like melee basic attack)
I suppose the problem with allowing trips on OAs is that it would step on the fighter's toes. I'd say make them at will powers available to everyone. That would leave heavy blade opportunity, which means anyone with an attack bonus and a sword could 'emulate' one of the fighter abilities... I don't really know how to manage that. Maybe an Utility At-Will?