Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="C4" data-source="post: 5294443" data-attributes="member: 93857">No other build plainly labels its powers with (Star Pact) tags, and then splits those powers between two stats.PS: I don't know what 'weelde' is, but I know that 'your' is possessive as in "Your hair looks great today." While 'you're' is a contraction of 'you are' as in "You're a great artist!"Look at the warlock chapter again; there actually isn't a build just for starlocks. They share a build with feylocks; suggested high stat is Cha, then Int, then Con. So yeah, it's a trap.You may not think my starlock tweak is necessary, but at the end of the day, there's no good reason for a trap build to exist. Meanwhile there's at least one good reason to untrap such a build; one of 4e's tenets is to reduce system mastery -- to make it so that the obvious options are at least competitive with the not-so-obvious ones. Like eamon says, players have all kinds of reasons for choosing the obvious thematic choices, so why punish them for it?I respect the designers, but I recognize when they frak up. And yeah, I know my house rules are no-brainers. (Well, you might be surprised how many DMs are RAWtarded, but that's neither here nor there.) That's the point; 4e is pretty close to being exactly what it's meant to be, so it doesn't need an overhaul. Just a few tweaks.</blockquote>