Are basic Powers to attack neccessary

I'm sure this has been covered but...

I was listening to a podcast (critical hits - love it), and a "3/4" orc fighter weilding a great axe two handed style roaring with furious rage attacks a foe. DM-what do you do, Fighter-i attack with my axe, DM-yes but what power do you use?

I think that illustrates what was wrong with the 4e power system.  (i'm not really complaining, i freakin love the 4e system, it just needs some tweaks a-la 5e)  a raging fighter swinging a massive axe is very frightful in its own right, in the light of that i think the "basic attack"  was very much undervalued. 

I believe in D&D next the basic attack should be your most damaging "at-will" attack.  you could have cleave which does a little less damage but hits two enemies.  or reaping strike would still get the strength on a miss but on a hit not do as much as a "basic attack"

Well thats my two cents
I liked the essentials approach of having stances that modified your basic attacks (but not the essentials approach of having no dailies and no real encounter powers, just extra damage tacked on).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I don't nessisarily disagree, but the problem is that there's a sweet-spot that needs to be found. If non-basic attacks are nerfed too much, then there's not much of a reason to use them, in most situations, meaning that people like myself, who found the pre-4e fighters boring, will find them boring again. But if they're not nerfed enough, then there still wouldn't be much of a reason to use the Basic attack, so it would do essentially nothing, by nerfing them.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

No offense intended Bryan, but that seems like a rather silly illustration.  If the player just says "I hit it with my axe," then the character is just making a melee basic attack.  There is plenty of room for a player to describe the power they are using in declaring their attack.  And, as b_n pointed out, essentials introduced stances to allow for just what you describe but with the added bonus of flexibilty.  If I may, please take a look at my blog.  I wrote a post about how to convert essentials stances into at-wills and at-wills into essentials stances.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.


The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.


You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.


Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.



Nope, I can't say I agree at all.  I see nothing wrong with stuff like Stances and Tricks (I did really really like tricks) but basic attack should be just that, a basic attack that you only really do when there isn't anything else you want to do.  I don't see any reason for it to be more powerfull then other at wills.  There really isn't a problem here.
Sign In to post comments