Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 4701056" data-attributes="member: 43019">This argument is not logical.Getting a stat from 16 to 18 takes 7 build points, which could easily net you 4 or so points in other stats (and almost certainly net you a +1 in an important secondary stat)... and only gives you +1 attack, when all is said to done.This feat gives +2 or +3 attack and costs you... a feat. Which you have several of and we have an established cost/benefit for... do any of the feats give you '+2 to your primary stat' or '+2 to your secondary stat and a tertiary stat'? No, that'd be way too good. And this feat gives even more than +2 to the primary stat, at higher tier.How about this - were people taking the conditional +1 attack feats, before expertise (nimble blade, hellfire blood, etc), since this is more than twice as good? No? Okay, it's blown the cost/benefit ratio. It's power creep. Period. Can we at least agree with that, and that it's not desirable? If you have no use for attack on a character, that's totally separate from whether it's bad design, right?Next question is - why would it be so extremely good? Well, we have lots of discussions about how character attack bonuses didn't scale well over tiers, and the +3 makes up that difference. Great, we have a reason! Just a lousy solution to that problem. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Inherent math problems can be fixed, but doing so with feats and equipment that limit choices and create distance between optimized and unoptimized play is a sad thing.</blockquote>

Verification