Basic Melee Attacks

[Mongolia Jones]

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

Dodgers have to split between DEX and CHA

 

[TK Lafours]

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!".

The different powers have been mentioned as a reason this isn't necessarily true. But also, bluff and intimidate are useful combat skills if used properly. It really is just that non Str classes approach combat differently but can be just as effective. Your OAs may not be as good but you have more movement and maneuver options and are probably more likely to get Combat Advantage (with its +2 and extra damage).

 

[inati]

It seems that you just want to make melee classes that use stats other than Str to be on par to builds that do rely on Strength; in other words you want to give them parity because you see that they have none.

The way I see it, these non-Str builds are designed in such a way that they receive additional benefits that offset the fact that their basic melee attacks won't be as strong. On top of that, the Str based builds take into account that their basic melee attacks will be stronger, and are balanced around this fact.
If you were to implement house rules to take away from this, you would unbalance the class builds and give non-Str based melee characters more powerful than the Str based ones.

 

[Skyscraper]

It seems that you just want to make melee classes that use stats other than Str to be on par to builds that do rely on Strength; in other words you want to give them parity because you see that they have none.

The way I see it, these non-Str builds are designed in such a way that they receive additional benefits that offset the fact that their basic melee attacks won't be as strong. On top of that, the Str based builds take into account that their basic melee attacks will be stronger, and are balanced around this fact.
If you were to implement house rules to take away from this, you would unbalance the class builds and give non-Str based melee characters more powerful than the Str based ones.

This is also how i see things. House-ruling to change basic attacks for the dodger to rely on DEX is like houseruling that they rely on INT for wizards, on CHA for paladins, on [whatever] for [whichever] other class. It's a houserule to take away one of the drawbacks of being a member of that class to strengthen that class beyond what was decided in core design. You're free to do it, but don't complain if you feel that the class is too powerful afterwards.

Sky

 

[Ravingdork]

So your player wants to have his cake and it it too?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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!".

Hmm, it did come off that way, a bit, didn't it? Not the case, though. Both rogue builds use DEX as thier primary attack stat, so they are both able to hit as often and as hard on thier turns in combat. Sly Flourish outdamages other at-wills by your CHA mod, while Riposte Strike mainly serves to deter an enemy attack (and not that well, even if you are strong). Brutal Rogues do hit more often with a Charge or an OA, but rogues aren't exactly in the charging and OAing business to begin with, so the Artful Dodger is not significantly worse at combat, he's slightly worse at some aspects of combat, better at others, and better at /some/ OOC things, while the brutal rogue has different advantages OOC. The builds are different - if they weren't, there'd be no point in having them - and they are reasonably balanced with eachother. The Artful Dodger is not at a significant disadvantage because his basic melee attack is a bit weak, he's just better at other things, other /combat/ things, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

It's all a balance of strategerie.

Brutal scoundrel is better at baseline melee making OAs.

Artful dodger is better at avoiding OAs and moving opponents so he can get combat advantage for big bonuses.

I don't think the Artful dodger needs help competing with the Brutal Scoundrel.

 

[ignayshus]

Brutal Scoundrels get OAs and charges.

Artful Dodgers get a three encounter powers from Bluff and Intimidate.
1. Gain combat advantage. Bluff v Insight (passive).
2. Stealth in plain sight against all enemies that can see you. Bluff v Insight (passive) + Stealth v Perception (passive).
3. Remove all bloodied enemies from combat. Intimidate v Will

I fail to see how the Dodger is getting the short end of the stick.

See below for details.

BLUFF
Bluff: Standard action in combat or part of a skill challenge.

Opposed Check: Bluff vs. Insight.

Gain Combat Advantage: Once per combat encounter, you can try to gain combat advantage against an adjacent enemy by feinting. As a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the enemy’s passive Insight check. If you succeed, you gain combat advantage against the enemy until the end of your next turn.

Create a Diversion to Hide: Once per combat encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the passive Insight check of any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTIMIDATE
Intimidate: Standard action in combat or part of a skill challenge.

Opposed Check: Intimidate vs. Will (see the table for modifiers to your target’s defense). If you can’t speak a language your target understands, you take a –5 penalty to your check. If you attempt to intimidate multiple enemies at once, make a separate Intimidate check against each enemy’s Will defense. Each target must be able to see and hear you.

Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender, get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action.

 

[s-dub]

Qustion about the indimidate block:

I noticed it says opposed check, the the intimidator rolls and adds their intimidate modifier to that.

What does the intimidatee add to their roll?


On a side note, does it say that diplomacy can have the same effect?


On another side note, why didn't they combine the diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills together and call it "Conversational Manipulation"? Too powerful?

 

[Bigwilly]

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.)

Don't think you need the special, however I would change the benefits as follows:
Benefit: When wielding a light blade, you may make melee weapon attacks using Dexterity instead of Strength on the attack and damage rolls. Powers that don't use Strength for attack and damage are unaffected.

This is more in line with the 3e feat (and the 4e rogue powers), which only allowed finesse with light weapons.