Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4264550" data-attributes="member: 40961">Its not &quot;strictly&quot; worse.&nbsp; There are skills which function based on strength.&nbsp; Strength also controls bonus attacks, such as opportunity attacks and free attacks granted by warlord abilities.&nbsp; I can see a Staff wizard who fights with Close powers wanting to have at least some strength score.&nbsp; Its not necessarily the Best Wizard Build EVAR, but its not worthless, and its certainly not &quot;strictly&quot; worse.This I can agree with.&nbsp; In 3e, you could run out of spells, so points in strength provided you with a low level backup.&nbsp; It was a long term waste of ability score points, because after a few levels running out of spells stopped being a problem, and in any case you got more out of points in dex and ranged attacks.&nbsp; But it did provide a distinct benefit- backup when you run out of spells.&nbsp; Now that you don't run out of spells, it doesn't do that anymore.This statement, on the other hand, is objectively false.I am a little confused about how so many people on this forum keep insisting that they spent time in 3e playing highly intelligent fighters, but that those fighters absolutely could not be represented by warlords, because warlords are smart and tactical, and their characters were crazy lunatics who should never be trusted with authority, who rejected all tactics, and mostly just liked pretty explosions.&nbsp; I thought that character class was &quot;sorcerer.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4264550, member: 40961"] Its not "strictly" worse. There are skills which function based on strength. Strength also controls bonus attacks, such as opportunity attacks and free attacks granted by warlord abilities. I can see a Staff wizard who fights with Close powers wanting to have at least some strength score. Its not necessarily the Best Wizard Build EVAR, but its not worthless, and its certainly not "strictly" worse. This I can agree with. In 3e, you could run out of spells, so points in strength provided you with a low level backup. It was a long term waste of ability score points, because after a few levels running out of spells stopped being a problem, and in any case you got more out of points in dex and ranged attacks. But it did provide a distinct benefit- backup when you run out of spells. Now that you don't run out of spells, it doesn't do that anymore. This statement, on the other hand, is objectively false. I am a little confused about how so many people on this forum keep insisting that they spent time in 3e playing highly intelligent fighters, but that those fighters absolutely could not be represented by warlords, because warlords are smart and tactical, and their characters were crazy lunatics who should never be trusted with authority, who rejected all tactics, and mostly just liked pretty explosions. I thought that character class was "sorcerer." [/QUOTE]

Verification