Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benly" data-source="post: 4397315" data-attributes="member: 67591">I think that allowing the retraining-out of Basic Attacks does have the potential to break the game (in a &quot;doesn't work&quot; sense, not in a &quot;OMG TOO GOOD&quot; sense) in that the rules are written and continue to be written with the assumption that all characters have both basic-attack powers. Personally I think this is best addressed by reworking the definition of basic attacks, however; if you just block off paragon multiclass at-will retraining from them, you still have the problem of (for example) a monster who can as an immediate interrupt remove a PC's access to a power he is attempting to use for the duration of the encounter. (Should he be able to remove basic attacks? Should he not be able to? Unclear and therefore problematic.)There are three other ambiguities raised by the language of paragon multiclass at-will retraining which I believe are worth looking into and deciding how and whether to fix.1: Divine Challenge.2: Cantrips.3: At-will utilities.A fighter (particularly a human fighter) retraining out one of his at-wills for Divine Challenge gets a good deal, but I do not think it is necessarily broken; paragon multiclassing for Thunderwave would get him even more of a marks-per-round advantage and is not outside the clearly-established bounds of the &quot;acceptable&quot;.Similarly, I think a character who trades one of his utility slots for an extra at-will or one of his at-will attacks for an at-will utility is not inherently getting an excessively good or bad deal. Given that, and given that it is within the bounds of existing RAW, I think it's fine.The biggest problem for me of the three is cantrips and paragon retraining, not because getting an extra at-will power for your paragon multiclass is too strong but rather because only wizards get a &quot;something for nothing&quot; deal on it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benly, post: 4397315, member: 67591"] I think that allowing the retraining-out of Basic Attacks does have the potential to break the game (in a "doesn't work" sense, not in a "OMG TOO GOOD" sense) in that the rules are written and continue to be written with the assumption that all characters have both basic-attack powers. Personally I think this is best addressed by reworking the definition of basic attacks, however; if you just block off paragon multiclass at-will retraining from them, you still have the problem of (for example) a monster who can as an immediate interrupt remove a PC's access to a power he is attempting to use for the duration of the encounter. (Should he be able to remove basic attacks? Should he not be able to? Unclear and therefore problematic.) There are three other ambiguities raised by the language of paragon multiclass at-will retraining which I believe are worth looking into and deciding how and whether to fix. 1: Divine Challenge. 2: Cantrips. 3: At-will utilities. A fighter (particularly a human fighter) retraining out one of his at-wills for Divine Challenge gets a good deal, but I do not think it is necessarily broken; paragon multiclassing for Thunderwave would get him even more of a marks-per-round advantage and is not outside the clearly-established bounds of the "acceptable". Similarly, I think a character who trades one of his utility slots for an extra at-will or one of his at-will attacks for an at-will utility is not inherently getting an excessively good or bad deal. Given that, and given that it is within the bounds of existing RAW, I think it's fine. The biggest problem for me of the three is cantrips and paragon retraining, not because getting an extra at-will power for your paragon multiclass is too strong but rather because only wizards get a "something for nothing" deal on it. [/QUOTE]

Verification