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="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4732207" data-attributes="member: 2011">If this were true, then all A shaped class PCs would all be the same. Since this is not the case, your objection here appears to be inaccurate.This objection doesn't hold water either. If one takes this position, one should be shouting that Chaladins do not make sense because their to hit is based on their personality. WT? WotC ignored that.Either one stays in the objective numbers world to solve the problem, or one goes into the subjective "what does Dex mean" world and that opens up all kinds of cans of worms.WotC already made the stats into interchangeable plug-in numbers in many many nonsensical examples. Wisdom can decide how far someone is slide back. Or, Constitution can decide that. Any ability score in the game can determine how far an opponent slides, even though many of them do not make any rational sense.There are many solutions to this problem. Allowing 3 ability scores to increase instead of 2 handles the defense delta problem.Sadrik's solution is not attempting to resolve that, so this objection to his solution is non-sequitor. His solution is trying to solve the V problem and it is a fairly simple and elegant solution. The only problem with it, IMO, is that it requires a feat.Personally, I would not have it require a feat since A shaped PCs do not have that problem and hence would gain a feat. If I considered it a problem with my game, I would just flat out give it to any player who wants it for his PC.One could use this argument to disagree with any house rule.Except that he is not doing this. He is saying "What's inherently wrong with having Enfeebling Strike hit with Strength instead of Charisma?"Answer: nothing.If WotC would have made Enfeebling Strike Str based and Holy Strike Cha based, nobody would have batted an eye. Nobody would have claimed: it makes more sense from a "sense of belief" perspective to switch them.That is effectively what your disagreement here indicates. That WotC did it the one and only proper way and the fix here destroys that.I disagree. I think WotC got wrapped up into the concept of "two different types" of many core classes and realized in latter books that this concept handcuffs players more than it benefits the game system.I do agree with you on this. With Sadrik's solution, nobody who optimizes their PC would take a Chaladin. And my response to this would be, err, so what?What is so special about a Chaladin other than the fact that the 4E core rules allowed the concept to exist? It never really existed in previous versions of DND other than as a minimum stat requirement. It's a brand new character concept that frankly, is no better or worse than any other and does not have to be in the game system. If someone really wanted a Chaladin, they could still take it with Sadrik's solution.Just like the Tiefling Rogue in our game with a Dex 16 is possible. Not optimal, but playable and enjoyed by the player playing her.Today, nobody takes an 18 Str Rogue.An 18 Str Rogue makes a lot of sense, much more than a Chaladin. But even with Brawny Rogue, the game system handcuffs players into taking a high Dex Rogue.It all depends on whether the DM and players contemplating Sadrik's solution think that the V shaped problem is so glaring that they are willing to drop the concept of an optimized Chaladin to fix it.Sadrik's solution making Chaladin's sub-optimal is no different than WotC's solution making 18 or 20 Str Brawny Rogues sub-optimal. I don't see you ragging on WotC for doing that.The argument "that's not how WotC did it" is fairly weak.</blockquote>

Verification