Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4613883" data-attributes="member: 48965">This... QFT!!&nbsp; It's one of the reasons I don't get it when people claim 4e doesn't penalize you for trying crazy stuff... Yeah, it does. A simple example is that you loose anywhere from a +2 to +3 if you hit somebody with an improvised weapon as opposed to a normal weapon you are proficient with...and depending on the particular creature even doing an ad-hoc attack against one of it's other defenses can be suboptimal... Quick question in a fight with a Dwarf Bolter do you have a better chance of running up and hitting him with a weapon power or running towards him and pushing him (Str vs. Fort)?&nbsp; Answer: Tactically the weapon is a better choice since his Fort def is only one less than his AC and this is easily accounted for by the prof bonus of your weapon.&nbsp; This only gets worse when your character begins investing in feats that affect his damage and chance to hit with certain weapons and/or gains magic weapons.In fact I was thinking this might be one of the reasons people, in 4e, stick with powers (a known quantity) VS. ad-hoc maneuvers (unknown in both DM's ruling on damage... and whether you have a better, worse or the same as your regular attack chance to hit.).&nbsp; Tactically it is better to stick with your powers rather than attempt a maneuver with totally unknown variables.EDIT: And before anyone jumps down my throat...yes 3e/3.5 penalizes you as well, but I've never seen that disputed so I didn't mention it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4613883, member: 48965"] This... QFT!! It's one of the reasons I don't get it when people claim 4e doesn't penalize you for trying crazy stuff... Yeah, it does. A simple example is that you loose anywhere from a +2 to +3 if you hit somebody with an improvised weapon as opposed to a normal weapon you are proficient with...and depending on the particular creature even doing an ad-hoc attack against one of it's other defenses can be suboptimal... Quick question in a fight with a Dwarf Bolter do you have a better chance of running up and hitting him with a weapon power or running towards him and pushing him (Str vs. Fort)? Answer: Tactically the weapon is a better choice since his Fort def is only one less than his AC and this is easily accounted for by the prof bonus of your weapon. This only gets worse when your character begins investing in feats that affect his damage and chance to hit with certain weapons and/or gains magic weapons. In fact I was thinking this might be one of the reasons people, in 4e, stick with powers (a known quantity) VS. ad-hoc maneuvers (unknown in both DM's ruling on damage... and whether you have a better, worse or the same as your regular attack chance to hit.). Tactically it is better to stick with your powers rather than attempt a maneuver with totally unknown variables. EDIT: And before anyone jumps down my throat...yes 3e/3.5 penalizes you as well, but I've never seen that disputed so I didn't mention it. [/QUOTE]

Verification