Infiniti2000
First Post
And yet that totally flies in the face of a lot of classes and concepts. While you have a reasonable point (after all, lots of previous editions followed your point), it doesn't mesh well at all in 4E.Characters that are strong should probably be better at swinging around giant hunks of metal than characters who are not strong.
Characters who are strong are represented with Strength.
Well, to be honest, if people (like me) feel kind of strongly about the mechanics side, those same people will scrutinize the efforts of others who try to be dismissive of the bad mechanics with fluff. If you think it's so easy to just ignore the bad rules, go ahead, but don't chime in about it without expecting to have your points challenged every step of the way.I suppose it was too much for me to hope that I wouldn't get called out on specifics in a thread with folks for whom a few points of attack bonus is Serious Business.
It's a huge discrepancy. It equates to being blind and worse at higher levels. The avenger in our group has a 10 strength because he doesn't need it (on his turn). Melee training is a fix to a bad rule (that melee characters suck at a fundamental aspect of melee). It's essentially a feat tax and now you want to nerf that tax. It's a kick in the balls after a slap in the face.Let me be clear: I don't mind the discrepancy of a few points of attack bonus between high Strength characters and everyone else in terms of MBA's.
This whole issue has nothing whatsover to do with history checks or hit points. You're making a bad analogy by comparing CON/hit points and STR/melee fighting. Your analogy would only hold true if classes had the ability to change out CON for another stat to determine hit points and healing surges (without a feat, just a standard class design). Classes DO do that for melee fighting (and ranged for that matter). "Okay, my new class X uses ability score XYZ for melee fighting...except for the basic, fundamental method of making melee attacks. WTF?"