Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4731269" data-attributes="member: 14506">Explain this please.I think when they were designing the classes their intent was to not have the character be an OR statement but rather an AND statement. More succinctly I think they wanted the ranger to be a two weapon fighter AND an archer not one or the other. In actual play this is not the case most people treat it as an OR statement due to the reliance on the uni-bloated stat assumption built into the system (two 16s is not the same as a prime 20). Will treating these four 1/2 classes as two separate classes solve the issue? To some extent. So are you going to publish twice the number of powers to make each 1/2 become a whole? I think not. They will always be behind the curve.This is a fundamental issue with these classes though, are you saying that the differentiation will be less because you are allowing the player to pick between all of their powers. In other words you think that the fighter, wizard, rogue and warlord are less differentiated because they are not cut in 1/2? I think this is patently false. The difference is that you are letting the game designer design your classes power selection in one case and allowing the player select their power selection in the other.4e fiat is any stat = any function. It written into the core assumptions of the game. This is not something that I thought needed to be argued. INT can be used to dodge blows, STR to resist poison INT to make your basic attacks, and CON to target eldritch blasts. They are "bags of numbers" and have no more meaning than applying the right one at the right time. This is shift from prior editions but it is a hump you have to get over to fully appreciate 4e. I have.Stat polarity is my major gripe with the 4e underpinning rules. If you want to call it complaining, so be it, it doesn't make it any less real of a problem. It disproportional polarizes your stat placement into polarizing the three pairs in a not natural way.Precisely where I arrived as well.This is exactly my proposed "fix". The only difference is that there is no need to make a pair, you only need the high card <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Basically if you are taking the top 3 stats no need to even address the bottom three.Agreed it is pretty seamless. In some cases they may pop a defense up by a point or two, but only in the case where they doubled up their stat points in one of the stat polarities (DEX and INT wizard for example). This "fix" does fly in the face of your aesthetic objection above, but really I think that is just a hurdle as I explained above.</blockquote>

Verification