NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 4699623" data-attributes="member: 8158">And why is every class entitled to have a credible melee basic attack? Isn't the point of investing a decent number in an ability score that you reap some benefit that the guy who lowballed it doesn't? Shouldn't there be some slight imposition to being a paladin with pipe-cleaner arms that can't be ameliorated with a feat? This is one of the big ham-handed elements of 4e. After you're done plugging in these different variables, the end goal seems to be to wind up with everyone having the same bonuses. The notion that a class is broken if it can't use its best ability scores to derive all important stats begs the question of why the heck the game bothers to have ability scores in the first place.Another case in point...I've got a player with the playtest barbarian. After all the clamor about barbarians having a lower AC, it turns out that he has the same AC as the paladin would have if he didn't use a shield. He spent a couple of feats on armor proficiencies. Apparently, in 4e having a mediocre aility score won't force you to live with a below-average bonus for attack, damage, or AC--it just means you'll have to spend a feat to catch up.But again, what's the point of finding different ways to derive AC if the ultimate of goal of a "well-designed" class is that it will ultimately have the same AC as any other class of that level?See, my group uses array too. I suspect if we used point-buy, you'd see every character with two inflated ability scores, and after that the rest will get lowballed unless there's some feat they want to meet the prereqs for.</blockquote>

Verification