Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5530591" data-attributes="member: 996">I had to trim a lot of mean from two fairly short posts to get the point I wanted to reply to.&nbsp; ;|There's two distinct points here.&nbsp; One is that the game doesn't /need/ any 'math fix' feats to work.&nbsp; I'm in complete agreement with you on this point.&nbsp; The greater number and breadth of powers high level characters have, and the impact of leaders at higher level easily make up for the lack of a few points of attack bonus.&nbsp; Similarly, the general toughness and back-from-the-dead options of Epic Level characters (and, again, their leaders) make them well able to deal with getting hit a bit more often vs one or two non-AC defenses.&nbsp; Leaving the math 'error' in actuall shakes up the otherwise monotonous 4e treadmill just a bit, making Epic actually feel just slightly different than Herioc (an oft voiced complaint is lack of difference in feel between tiers - maybe if the few differences that did exist weren't being ironed away, that'd be less noticeable?)The other point is that players don't /have/ to take a feat, just because it has easy or no pre-requisites, and grants them power substantially greater than any other feat.&nbsp; While it's technically true - a player can flex his role-not-roll play egotism and deny his character the best option available out of sheer stubborness - such feats do not represent a balanced choice.&nbsp; While it is true that a 16 stat +2 weapon character would just be brought up to par by Expertise, there's nothing forcing the feat to be aproached with that much restraint, and the 18 stat +3 weapon characters will also likely have it.&nbsp; Heck, if someone is not prioritising attack with stat &amp; weapon choices, it's entirely possible he won't think to do so with feats, either, leaving him 3 points of Attack bonus behind his allies - a quite noticeable difference.&nbsp; In 4e, just about everyone has to roll to hit some time, so it's almost always a priority to hit consistently.&nbsp; It's not like 2e where spells rarely required an attack roll, or 3e, where they might have a very easy 'touch' attack roll.&nbsp; Everyone's in the same boat.&nbsp; (OK, maybe not the the most extreme of the odd leader builds that give away their standard actions to let allies attack.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5530591, member: 996"] I had to trim a lot of mean from two fairly short posts to get the point I wanted to reply to. ;| There's two distinct points here. One is that the game doesn't /need/ any 'math fix' feats to work. I'm in complete agreement with you on this point. The greater number and breadth of powers high level characters have, and the impact of leaders at higher level easily make up for the lack of a few points of attack bonus. Similarly, the general toughness and back-from-the-dead options of Epic Level characters (and, again, their leaders) make them well able to deal with getting hit a bit more often vs one or two non-AC defenses. Leaving the math 'error' in actuall shakes up the otherwise monotonous 4e treadmill just a bit, making Epic actually feel just slightly different than Herioc (an oft voiced complaint is lack of difference in feel between tiers - maybe if the few differences that did exist weren't being ironed away, that'd be less noticeable?) The other point is that players don't /have/ to take a feat, just because it has easy or no pre-requisites, and grants them power substantially greater than any other feat. While it's technically true - a player can flex his role-not-roll play egotism and deny his character the best option available out of sheer stubborness - such feats do not represent a balanced choice. While it is true that a 16 stat +2 weapon character would just be brought up to par by Expertise, there's nothing forcing the feat to be aproached with that much restraint, and the 18 stat +3 weapon characters will also likely have it. Heck, if someone is not prioritising attack with stat & weapon choices, it's entirely possible he won't think to do so with feats, either, leaving him 3 points of Attack bonus behind his allies - a quite noticeable difference. In 4e, just about everyone has to roll to hit some time, so it's almost always a priority to hit consistently. It's not like 2e where spells rarely required an attack roll, or 3e, where they might have a very easy 'touch' attack roll. Everyone's in the same boat. (OK, maybe not the the most extreme of the odd leader builds that give away their standard actions to let allies attack.) [/QUOTE]

Verification