House Rule problem... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

House Rule problem...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
entourage
Aug 17, 2010 23:32:09 So, when I first started DnD 4e had just come out. The DM our group plays with had put this up to a vote: "Should MBA and RBA simply be the player's at-will abilities?" It should be noted the enemies we face do this as well. At the time I thought this was a fair enough house rule. It seemed easy to get into. The logic was that if a boxer is taught to use his hook he can always use said hook. He's never going to put out a slap in its stead or something. However, now that I look back on it...I'm not sure this was the greatest decisions. It seems to lean things too heavily into our favour in combat and less importantly, neglect a few feats here and there.

Should I put up the idea to take this rule back and what sort of argument should I give if I do?
#2
CCS
Aug 17, 2010 23:53:50
It seems to lean things too heavily into our favour in combat and less importantly, neglect a few feats here and there.

Well, if you do decide to bring it up, use the above as your argument....

That's the great thing about these games. You can modify them at any point if it suites the group.
#3
alitain
Aug 18, 2010 2:32:06 Wait, just want to be clear, are you saying that instead of picking the at will powers that go along with your class, that you instead only get a MBA and RBA? If that's the case that blows dude, you do realize that anyone can make a MBA and RBA if they want, in addition to their at will rights? There's no reason to select one or the other.

If that isn't the case though, then I definitely do not understand the point of your post but as CCS said you can change stuff whenever you want pretty well in D&D.
#4
entourage
Aug 18, 2010 4:43:11 No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right?
#5
DanTracker
Aug 18, 2010 6:46:35 I wouldn't allow that. It would be placing too much power in favor of the PCs. Most monsters have MBA or RBA that if their least impactful attack, but some monsters do indeed have very strong MBA and RBA. It makes up part of their lore as a monster.

If you fight with mostly humanoids--as in they could be PC races--then it makes sense to ensure that they have a very simple MBA and/or RBA that is different than their at-will attacks. But for monsters that are creatures of some nature outside the PC races, it is appropriate to imagine that their MBA and/or RBA is much more potent.

The players should be using the appropriate power for MBA and/or RBA. Also, many classes have powers that specify permission to use as MBA or RBA. If you are allowing any at-will to become the MBA or RBA, you add needlessly to powers that ought not be used in such a way.
#6
tequila_sunrise
Aug 18, 2010 9:02:34
No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right?

Right; though I can't imagine this house rule having a significant impact on combat. I wouldn't use it though, because it makes a few feats obsolete.

As an aside, I let my weapon wielding players use their class' stat for weapon BAs. Because a rogue going from hero to putz when he makes an OA is silly--even by D&D standards.
#7
mplindustries
Aug 18, 2010 9:11:59 I think the biggest problems you'll face are with:

1) Twin Strike/Hand of Radiance as OAs/leader granted attacks
2) Area spells like Burning Spray, Sword Burst, or Winged Horde being OA's/leader granted attacks
3) Fighters with several of their more powerful at-wills used on OA's and Combat Challenges

On the other hand, it may have drastically improved the lot of the Assaulting Swordmage. Still, I think it's a poor idea overall.
#8
alitain
Aug 18, 2010 22:13:14
No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right?

If your players are almost always using M/RBA over their at wills, then that's there problem. Honestly I've almost never made a MBA with melee characters, and...yeah never with ranged characters. It just doesn't come up that often for our group. The difference between players and monsters is that players have various options for powers and such. Monsters usually have at least one Basic set attack for the reason that they don't exactly have a M/RBA like players do because they'd not the same thing so that's why they always give monsters a Basic attack.

Players on the other hand have class powers, such as at wills, which are intended to be in a way better than just a regular attack. The reason is that some classes don't use Str or Dex as a main stat, so even if a player's at will does the same thing as a M/RBA, it could use Wis as the main attack score. That's why they break up Basic attacks and at wills.

Also you get into the area of powers and such that allow a player to make a basic attack and players spamming at wills which while plenty are just straight forward damage, some have other effects added on. I mean you have a lazy warlord who all he does is give players chances to spam basic attacks, coupled with some classes that have at wills which do certain effects or heal, or whatever, and you could potentially have a overpowering group. Now of course I've never done this so I have no idea, but that's why only some at wills are considered basic attacks and not everyone. I would just say stay with the rules, it works fine that way.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 entourage Aug 17, 2010 23:32:09	So, when I first started DnD 4e had just come out. The DM our group plays with had put this up to a vote: "Should MBA and RBA simply be the player's at-will abilities?" It should be noted the enemies we face do this as well. At the time I thought this was a fair enough house rule. It seemed easy to get into. The logic was that if a boxer is taught to use his hook he can always use said hook. He's never going to put out a slap in its stead or something. However, now that I look back on it...I'm not sure this was the greatest decisions. It seems to lean things too heavily into our favour in combat and less importantly, neglect a few feats here and there. Should I put up the idea to take this rule back and what sort of argument should I give if I do?
#2 CCS Aug 17, 2010 23:53:50	It seems to lean things too heavily into our favour in combat and less importantly, neglect a few feats here and there. Well, if you do decide to bring it up, use the above as your argument.... That's the great thing about these games. You can modify them at any point if it suites the group.
#3 alitain Aug 18, 2010 2:32:06	Wait, just want to be clear, are you saying that instead of picking the at will powers that go along with your class, that you instead only get a MBA and RBA? If that's the case that blows dude, you do realize that anyone can make a MBA and RBA if they want, in addition to their at will rights? There's no reason to select one or the other. If that isn't the case though, then I definitely do not understand the point of your post but as CCS said you can change stuff whenever you want pretty well in D&D.
#4 entourage Aug 18, 2010 4:43:11	No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right?
#5 DanTracker Aug 18, 2010 6:46:35	I wouldn't allow that. It would be placing too much power in favor of the PCs. Most monsters have MBA or RBA that if their least impactful attack, but some monsters do indeed have very strong MBA and RBA. It makes up part of their lore as a monster. If you fight with mostly humanoids--as in they could be PC races--then it makes sense to ensure that they have a very simple MBA and/or RBA that is different than their at-will attacks. But for monsters that are creatures of some nature outside the PC races, it is appropriate to imagine that their MBA and/or RBA is much more potent. The players should be using the appropriate power for MBA and/or RBA. Also, many classes have powers that specify permission to use as MBA or RBA. If you are allowing any at-will to become the MBA or RBA, you add needlessly to powers that ought not be used in such a way.
#6 tequila_sunrise Aug 18, 2010 9:02:34	No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right? Right; though I can't imagine this house rule having a significant impact on combat. I wouldn't use it though, because it makes a few feats obsolete. As an aside, I let my weapon wielding players use their class' stat for weapon BAs. Because a rogue going from hero to putz when he makes an OA is silly--even by D&D standards.
#7 mplindustries Aug 18, 2010 9:11:59	I think the biggest problems you'll face are with: 1) Twin Strike/Hand of Radiance as OAs/leader granted attacks 2) Area spells like Burning Spray, Sword Burst, or Winged Horde being OA's/leader granted attacks 3) Fighters with several of their more powerful at-wills used on OA's and Combat Challenges On the other hand, it may have drastically improved the lot of the Assaulting Swordmage. Still, I think it's a poor idea overall.
#8 alitain Aug 18, 2010 22:13:14	No, I mean that instead of using a MBA a fighter could instead use Shield Bash. MBA and RBA are effectively nonexistant in our campaign. Furthermore whenever you would normally use a MBA and RBA, such as in the context of a power or OA, you may instead use an At-Will ability. Does this shed some light on how the battles lean in our favour? I mean players make more use of MBA and RBAs then enemies...right? If your players are almost always using M/RBA over their at wills, then that's there problem. Honestly I've almost never made a MBA with melee characters, and...yeah never with ranged characters. It just doesn't come up that often for our group. The difference between players and monsters is that players have various options for powers and such. Monsters usually have at least one Basic set attack for the reason that they don't exactly have a M/RBA like players do because they'd not the same thing so that's why they always give monsters a Basic attack. Players on the other hand have class powers, such as at wills, which are intended to be in a way better than just a regular attack. The reason is that some classes don't use Str or Dex as a main stat, so even if a player's at will does the same thing as a M/RBA, it could use Wis as the main attack score. That's why they break up Basic attacks and at wills. Also you get into the area of powers and such that allow a player to make a basic attack and players spamming at wills which while plenty are just straight forward damage, some have other effects added on. I mean you have a lazy warlord who all he does is give players chances to spam basic attacks, coupled with some classes that have at wills which do certain effects or heal, or whatever, and you could potentially have a overpowering group. Now of course I've never done this so I have no idea, but that's why only some at wills are considered basic attacks and not everyone. I would just say stay with the rules, it works fine that way.