Class defence bonus to weakest defence

Kzach

Banned
Banned
Although it seems logical, at least at first blush, to give a class defence bonus to the class's atypical strength, mechanically it's a seriously poor idea given that the class's strength is already represented by a primary stat.

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but given the gamist nature of 4e, isn't it more logical to give the defence bonus of a class to the class's WEAKEST defence?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you look at the monk and barbarian, they actually did exactly that.

Though it runs afoul of problems when someone increases a secondary other than the expected one - like super AC-y/Reflex-y barbarians who increased Dex a lot.
 


Although it seems logical, at least at first blush, to give a class defence bonus to the class's atypical strength, mechanically it's a seriously poor idea given that the class's strength is already represented by a primary stat.

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but given the gamist nature of 4e, isn't it more logical to give the defence bonus of a class to the class's WEAKEST defence?
Some classes already do that - the Swordmage comes to mind. The class defense bonuses seem to more about the power source and the nature of the class itself, which doesn't always line up with the class' prime and secondary stats.

There is a real issue in the upper levels with the weaker defenses, because of the combo of low starting stat + no stat bumps. I don't think that switching around the class bonus is going to affect that much, myself.

Only if your position is that pcs should not have a weakness.
There are weaknesses, and then crippling weaknesses... Admittedly, it shouldn't matter much in the heroic and early paragon tiers.
 

There are weaknesses, and then crippling weaknesses... Admittedly, it shouldn't matter much in the heroic and early paragon tiers.

Are you suggesting that a single low defense is a crippling weakness?

Speaking as someone that has run several parties up to mid/high paragon in 4e, I haven't seen that at all. Even if a pc always gets hit by attacks that target his low defense, I don't think it's crippling at all.
 

Are you suggesting that a single low defense is a crippling weakness?
Depends on how low it is.

Speaking as someone that has run several parties up to mid/high paragon in 4e, I haven't seen that at all. Even if a pc always gets hit by attacks that target his low defense, I don't think it's crippling at all.
As a player I find it frustrating to be completely helpless against a creature's attacks. Especially since monsters never have that weakness. As a DM, I would hesitate to use monsters that could auto-stun, dominate, restrain, etc. one or more party members on a regular basis, and that's frustrating as well.
 


I think it's okay if a player gets battered every now and then, as long as it doesn't become a regular thing.

Yeah, this is where I'm coming from too.

That said, at-will stuns are inherently problematic, but a monster that WILL hit with his big signature attack? I'm totally cool with that.
 

yes

That's what dungeoneering and team work are for. Some enemy targets reflex and will stun your paladin? Let the rogue take that one, and mark him at range.

I did this many times to great effect. You need to play the hand you're dealt. Being impossible to hit is not fun. There are a lot of char op builds that make me sick with how unhittable they are. D&D is supposed to be brutal and you are supposed to die sometimes, but hey, that's just my opinion. In my day...fullplate and shield were the only way to get to AC 0. Now, light armor is way, way better. (no movement penalty, Strike 1 against heavy armor).

If you can't beat'em, join em. I gave up on plate when I saw most of the AC builds out there ignored it, Strike 2. Finally, you will never fly in this game, for instance, in anything higher than hide armor. Strike 3.

4e = Light armor / Dex builds FTW. How I wish they had kept it light/medium/heavy armor.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top