Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 4636669" data-attributes="member: 3146">My take on the philosophy that motivated it is that it could be summed up as follows:&quot;Attributes don't actually represent anything--every defender should have a strong melee basic attack. Therefore we will give swordmages a feat that lets them ignore strength and still have a good melee basic attack.&quot;The net result is: &quot;I'm a 98 pound weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so smart.&quot; If we see a series of similar feats like the constantly suggested &quot;intelligent blademaster for charisma paladins,&quot; then we'll have &quot;I look like a weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so pretty/spiritually gifted,&quot; &quot;I am a weakling who has trouble lifting a breadbox but I hit like a truck because I'm so wise,&quot; and &quot;I am a weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so tough.&quot; With the various regions and backgrounds, we already have &quot;I get a cold walking through the sprinkler in summertime, but I can take a beating like Rocky Balboa because I'm so smart/wise/etc&quot;Go any further and, you might as well ditch all of the attribute names and just have attributes A-F. It would make more sense.What should they have done instead? (And what should they do with charisma paladins?) Make powers that are usable on opportunity attacks like the swordmaster's precision cut. That way, characters are generally as they appear but can have some abilities to mitigate their weaknesses. This is far preferable to introducing a slew of natural spell type class abilities masquerading as feats that end up making all characters in a particular role function the same way regardless of what their attributes actually are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elder-Basilisk, post: 4636669, member: 3146"] My take on the philosophy that motivated it is that it could be summed up as follows: "Attributes don't actually represent anything--every defender should have a strong melee basic attack. Therefore we will give swordmages a feat that lets them ignore strength and still have a good melee basic attack." The net result is: "I'm a 98 pound weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so smart." If we see a series of similar feats like the constantly suggested "intelligent blademaster for charisma paladins," then we'll have "I look like a weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so pretty/spiritually gifted," "I am a weakling who has trouble lifting a breadbox but I hit like a truck because I'm so wise," and "I am a weakling but I hit like a truck because I'm so tough." With the various regions and backgrounds, we already have "I get a cold walking through the sprinkler in summertime, but I can take a beating like Rocky Balboa because I'm so smart/wise/etc" Go any further and, you might as well ditch all of the attribute names and just have attributes A-F. It would make more sense. What should they have done instead? (And what should they do with charisma paladins?) Make powers that are usable on opportunity attacks like the swordmaster's [i]precision cut[/i]. That way, characters are generally as they appear but can have some abilities to mitigate their weaknesses. This is far preferable to introducing a slew of natural spell type class abilities masquerading as feats that end up making all characters in a particular role function the same way regardless of what their attributes actually are. [/QUOTE]

Verification