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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 4093371" data-attributes="member: 17077">One of the things that I'm apprehensive about in 4e is the attribute crossover. For example, dex now seems to add to damage with ranged attacks instead of strength. Yet, in real life, strength is very, very important for archers. I was watching the history channel episode about the english longbowman, and the archaeologists could actually tell them from the other soliders because of the bone density of their arms. They were THAT strong. Archers weren't puny little stick figures. They had to be the strongest of soldiers, since pulling the bow required such tremendous strength. Most people today wouldn't even be able to string a traditional longbow.Now, I can unerstand why they did this, to a degree. Melee characters have always got strength to hit and to damage. That said, I think it encourages min-maxing. Why would a ranger need strength in this editon? He could just get Con instead and get more HP and healing surges. For that matter, why would any Wizard need Dexterity or any Rogue need Intelligence, now that either attribute can be used for AC and Reflex defense? Why would a Sorcerer ever take Wisdom? Why would a Cleric get charisma? I can go on and on, but I think you get my point by now.4e clearly seems to encourage min-maxing to a degree never seen before. Mages can function almost exclusively off of Int, using it for attack, damage, AC and reflex. For his other two attributes, he can get con and his choice of wis or cha. The other three attributes he can ignore entirely with virtually no consequence. He'll never miss them, save for an occasional skill check. Likewise, a Rogue has almost no reason to take Intelligence anymore. 4e has, IMHO, made it far to easy to simply ignore half of the attributes. Likeweise, putting the maximum possible points in your primary attribute is now a no-brainer. Any Wizard that doesn't put an 18+ into Intelligence will be rightly mocked by his fellow players. Now, I'm not even going to get into why I think intelligence making you better at dodging attacks and fireballs is asinine. Quite a few people seem to think this makes sense. *shrug* But I will complain about the negative impact I think this will have on character diversity and balance.I was hoping that 4e would create more character diversity and discourage min-maxing. Or, at least, make it so that picking a suboptimal attribute or race wouldn't make you a fool. Instead, they did the exact opposite, making min-maxing the default method of play and easier and more rewarding than ever before. What if I want to play a wise Sorcerer? By doing so, I'm spending points in an attribute that already overlaps with Cha for will defense, so it loses its greatest benefit. I'd be much better served putting those points in something that would increase my other defenses. So, yet again, putting role-playing ahead of power playing yeilds a weaker character. Yeah, 3e also had this problem, but I think 4e made it even worse.</blockquote>

Verification