Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4697103" data-attributes="member: 5143">Of course it has to be fun.  I'm just saying that I have a lot of fun fighting my way through dungeons killing monsters.  Always have.  It's why I continue to play.  No need to modify the dungeons.Nothing is ever perfect.  But what is "good enough" is highly subjective.  Once, I had a DM who just kept increasing the hitpoints of one of the bad guys we were fighting because he felt the stats of the enemy weren't good enough.  He was going to die in 2 rounds instead of the 8-10 rounds he wanted him to last.  So, as the battle went on and on, everyone at the table kept complaining that they had no idea what they were doing wrong, because no matter what they did, the enemy seemed indestructible.  Around round 7 or so, all of us weren't having any fun anymore.  We wanted our characters to be cool and able to defeat the enemies.  We'd trapped him in a corner and were just making attacks on him over and over again.  It wasn't much fun.Finally, the creature died.  The DM later revealed that that he'd been modifying the hitpoints of the creature in order to make the game better for everyone.  Everyone universally agreed that it was not "better".  The DM said it was and got in a big argument with us over it.That's where I learned a valuable lesson.  People have more fun when things aren't changed.  Even if something seems like it'll be better to me, I attempt to avoid it. Of course you don't expect to be good at the staff if you have a 10 STR.  But, then again, perhaps your character concept is "A super intelligent wizard, a prodigy in spellcasting.  His spells are very hard to resist and are very powerful, but he's weak and uncoordinated."If I make that character in 4e, I can have fun beating up the enemies.  I can cast magic missiles at them and hit on a regular basis and do effective damage.  If you remove my at-will powers, however, I can only use a couple of encounter powers each combat that are spells.  The rest of the time, I'm forced to attack with my staff with my 10 STR.  And I'm really bad at it.  So it's no fun.So, my only recourse is to lower my INT from 20 to 16 in order to have enough points to have a 16 STR, so that I have some chance of hitting with my staff attacks.  But now, my INT is so low that I'm only moderately good at casting spells, and I'm strong.  It doesn't fit my character at all.You are telling me that in your game, either you have a STR or DEX score or you are a bad character.  Which, IMHO, would take away the fun of some people.For instance, I played a character with 8 STR and 20 INT in 3.5e.  I recreated him in 4e with the same stats(well, the STR and INT were the same).In 3.5e, it was no fun to play him for the first 4 levels or so.  He didn't have enough spells, and I couldn't hit anything with an 8 STR.  I had a 12 DEX, so I couldn't really hit anything with a bow either.  If I didn't think the fight was hard enough, I'd simply delay every round without doing anything.  I'd often read a book instead of paying attention to the fight in these cases.  It wasn't much fun, but I was biding my time until the role playing portions of the game and for the time when I'd be high enough level to have a spell to cast every round.In 4e, it was fun from the beginning.  I was Magic Missiling every round, I was using Flame Burst.  In an average 7 round combat at 1st level, I used Force Orb once, Flame Burst 4 times and Magic Missile twice.  Not a huge amount of "spamming".  But it was better than the equivalent in 3.5e: 2 Magic Missiles then delaying for 3 rounds.  I am doing something that feels effective every round now and I am playing the character I want to play.In your proposed system, I'd be forced to be a mediocre Wizard if I wanted to help my party do damage after I was out of encounter powers.Compare that to a Fighter who can basic attack with the exact same stat as his at-will powers.  He loses nothing at all.  In fact, if you give him the same solution and give him more encounter powers, he just gets better.He gets to basic attack every round.  Spamming basic attacks instead of his at-will powers(which changes almost nothing for fighters).  He can keep his 20 STR.  He gets to do something cool and powerful every round while I get to...watch him play.I've shown multiple times now that it isn't.  You are telling someone to accept a greater than 30% decrease in their effectiveness at their spells in order to satisfy your need to have more basic attacks in your game.  Meanwhile, you are taking away almost nothing from other classes.  I would agree with this is you changed basic attacks to be based off of everyone's worst stat instead.I'm fairly certain you'd disagree if I said:I dislike that fighters can attack so well with basic attacks.  They only practice with advanced techniques, all the basics are mostly forgotten.  They should use their STR in order to use Encounters and Dailies, but in order to do the mundane stuff they have to remember how to do it properly.  They should be using INT for all their basic attacks in order to simulate this.I think this would make for a good balance.  Fighters are forced to use INT for most of their attacks while Wizards are forced to use STR for most of theirs.  It balances things out nicely.</blockquote>

Verification