Basic Melee Attacks

[Maximillian]

Doing the character creation legwork for my first 4e game. One of my players is highly interested in playing an "Artful Dodger" style rogue. High dexterity, high charisma, focused on sneak attacks and moving opponents around the battlefield.

His issue with the build is that he focuses on these stats, but is still ultimately a melee character. In any situation where he makes a melee basic attack, he is still required to use his strength for both attack and damage. At first, I thought this wasn't a big deal--no one really makes basic attacks. However, attacks of opportunity and especially certain warlord powers seem likely to give him a pretty impressive number of extra attacks.

As I see it, the rogue is a Striker. The warlord is going to want to utilize that extra damage potential by allowing the high-damage party members extra attacks. If the rogue were of the "Brutal Scoundrel" inclination, these attacks would be far more useful for him, as melee basic attacks are always strength based. The same is true even if the warlord grants the attack to the paladin, the cleric (and even moreso) to a fighter.

I want to allow the player to operate within his concept, which has a lot to do with tag-team damage dealing with the Warlord, but he's going to be at a significant disadvantage using strength-based attacks. Any thoughts?

 

[Brain]

I've run into this same situation as well and it irks me. For characters that are melee based but use a different stat for their melee powers (rog using dex, pal using cha, etc) it may make sense to house rule their basic attack to use that stat instead of strength.

Things impacted would be the main sources of basic melee attacks - charging, opportunity attacks, and an allied warlord.

The artful dodger type rogue is the strongest case for using another stat for basic melee attacks. In my opinion they should be allowed to use dex instead, since all rogue attacks use dex.

The charisma paladin is a harder case than the rogue, because they have the option of using str based powers to attack. However in practice, a paladin could use only cha based powers and have very weak basic attacks. I'm on the fence for this case.

The wisdom cleric is an even more tenuous case - since they are using wisdom for ranged attacks with an implement mostly. Str is an option. I'm inclined to say that a wis cleric would still use str for basic melee.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, that's the way it is: a Brutal Scoundrel is generally better at OAs, charging, and other melee basic attacks than is an Artful Dodger. Same goes for Avenging vs Defending paladins, TWF vs Archer Rangers and War vs Devoted Clerics. OTOH, the Artful Dodger is better at Bluff, Diplomacy, and even Intimidate, likely has a better Will defense, and so forth. They also qualify for different feats. For that matter, I'd go so far as to say that Sly Flourish is better than Riposte Strike. The 'Dodger gets a lot of cool stuff, including a name that makes some sense and is a Dickens reference, the Brutal Scoundrel gets to make decent basic attacks.

Which stats you put good scores in have more consequnces than just how well your class abilities work for you. Insulating one class from those consequences would mess with balance among the classes (or, in this case, builds).

The Artful Dodger who wants to work well with a warlord can invest some in STR, but he can also just get by on Dagger Proficiency (+3), Combat Advantage (flanking with the Warlord, say, for +2), and any bonuses the Warlord gives along with the free basic attack. For his part, the Warlord can give the 'Dodger the occassional Standard Action, instead, either through some higher level exploits or via a Helm of Heroes (check it out, awesome for the Warlord who likes giving his allies extra actions).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also I would imagine that a lot of the synergy that a rogue would get from a warlord is the warlord (for instance) shifting him into a flank position where he gets combat advantage - especially if he hasn't used his sneak attack yet this turn (or missed with other attacks, so the sneak attack is unspent).

The sneak attack damage bonus is the big thing that the rogue striker brings to be party, even on his basic attacks.

 

[Satori]

Excellent response, Tony Vargas.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yep, that's the way it is: a Brutal Scoundrel is generally better at OAs, charging, and other melee basic attacks than is an Artful Dodger. Same goes for Avenging vs Defending paladins, TWF vs Archer Rangers and War vs Devoted Clerics. OTOH, the Artful Dodger is better at Bluff, Diplomacy, and even Intimidate, likely has a better Will defense, and so forth.

This seems like distinctly 3E reasoning to me. What you're saying seems to boil down to "Yes, these builds are significantly worse at combat, but hey, they might be better in non-combat situations!". That seems pretty terrible, given that in 4E everyone is meant to shine equally, more or less, in and out of combat. It seems more like this is something WotC didn't fully consider, rather than a completely considered design-decision.

With Rangers and Clerics it makes some sense, because the ones who use STR are also the ones who melee, and thus are much much more likely to get OAs, much more likely to be working with Warlord abilities and so on. So that's not a big deal. It does, however, seem like a pretty big deal with Paladins and Rogues.

 

[yu gnomi]

This seems like distinctly 3E reasoning to me. What you're saying seems to boil down to "Yes, these builds are significantly worse at combat, but hey, they might be better in non-combat situations!". That seems pretty terrible, given that in 4E everyone is meant to shine equally, more or less, in and out of combat. It seems more like this is something WotC didn't fully consider, rather than a completely considered design-decision.

I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. Artful Dodger and Brute Scoundrel have different approaches to combat. Look at rogue powers in PHB that have perks for Artful Dodger (like Positioning Strike and Bait & Switch). Look at Flanking rules that say PC's have to be on opposite sides of a foe to flank and get Combat Advantage (so Rogue can sneak attack).

Artful Dodger trades straightforward advantages in Str based attacks and sneak atttack damage, for better mobility and better ability to re-position enemies. The fact that he is better at Cha based skills is part of Artful Dodger focus on Cha as second best stat.

 

[77IM]

I've run into this same situation as well and it irks me. For characters that are melee based but use a different stat for their melee powers (rog using dex, pal using cha, etc) it may make sense to house rule their basic attack to use that stat instead of strength.

This sounds like a good house rule feat:


WEAPON FINESSE
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: When wielding a one-handed weapon (even if it is a versatile weapon and you are wielding it in two hands) you may make melee weapon attacks using Dexterity for attack and damage rather than Strength. Powers that don't use Strength for attack and damage are unaffected.
Special: A ranger who takes this feat gives up the ability to use their class powers in conjunction with projectile weapons. (They can still use their class powers with thrown weapons, though.)


... This feat would be imbalanced in the hands of a ranger, who could then become good at both melee and ranged without having to split ability points between Str and Dex, hence the slightly odd "Special" section. But for other melee classes, this could provide some interesting variant builds (imagine a "swashbuckling cleric" using Dex instead of Str for their melee powers).

-- 77IM

 

[Ahrimon]

Dont forget that the dodger doesn't have to split his attributes between str and dex and can focus solely on dex. thats huge in a system with little to no ability boosts

 

[Ahrimon]

... This feat would be imbalanced in the hands of a ranger, who could then become good at both melee and ranged without having to split ability points between Str and Dex, hence the slightly odd "Special" section. But for other melee classes, this could provide some interesting variant builds (imagine a "swashbuckling cleric" using Dex instead of Str for their melee powers).

-- 77IM

So the rogue gets to be special and the ranger can just piss off eh?