Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why is/was melee training so bad?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5277067" data-attributes="member: 65726"><p>By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat. You typically make your at-will, encounter, daily attacks based on that stat. Why does a basic attack need to be any different? I can understand the range vs melee distinction. As a class feature, if every melee character gets a melee basic attack they can use with their primary stat, and if every ranged character gets a ranged basic attack they can use with their primary stat, we are set. If they already have an at-will they can use as a basic attack, this is less necessary. Controllers should have this as a feature rather than choice of at-will, since variety is important to the role, and having to spend an at-will on a basic attack is detrimental.</p><p></p><p>[sblock=sample basic attack feature powers]</p><p>Cleric: Wis vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Wis</p><p>Paladin: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha (they can pick Virtuous Strike, so not very necessary, but could be given some consideration, since it does take away an at-will, but of course giving this free weakens the at-will, bit of a tough design spot)</p><p>Rogue: Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex</p><p>Wizard: pick one, Magic Missile or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int</p><p>Avenger: Wis vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Wis</p><p>Bard: pick one, Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha or Cha vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Cha</p><p>Druid: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature since they have a third at-will, though a ranged basic attack added to the at-will arsenal could be interesting)</p><p>Invoker: Wis vs Fort, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Wis.</p><p>Shaman: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature through opportunity attacks)</p><p>Sorcerer: (they already have multiple ways, and I don't actually care that it takes one of their at-wills)</p><p>Ardent: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha</p><p>Battlemind: Con vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Con</p><p>Monk: Dex vs Refl, melee touch, implement, 1d8+Dex</p><p>Psion: Int vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int</p><p>Artificer: pick one, Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int, or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Int</p><p>Assassin: pick one, Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex or Dex vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Dex</p><p>Swordmage: Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int</p><p></p><p>If these basic attack features were added to the classes in question, the playing platform would be more uniform, and Strength classes wouldn't have the upper hand for simply being a strength primary class.</p><p>[/sblock]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mengu, post: 5277067, member: 65726"] By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat. You typically make your at-will, encounter, daily attacks based on that stat. Why does a basic attack need to be any different? I can understand the range vs melee distinction. As a class feature, if every melee character gets a melee basic attack they can use with their primary stat, and if every ranged character gets a ranged basic attack they can use with their primary stat, we are set. If they already have an at-will they can use as a basic attack, this is less necessary. Controllers should have this as a feature rather than choice of at-will, since variety is important to the role, and having to spend an at-will on a basic attack is detrimental. [sblock=sample basic attack feature powers] Cleric: Wis vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Wis Paladin: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha (they can pick Virtuous Strike, so not very necessary, but could be given some consideration, since it does take away an at-will, but of course giving this free weakens the at-will, bit of a tough design spot) Rogue: Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex Wizard: pick one, Magic Missile or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int Avenger: Wis vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Wis Bard: pick one, Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha or Cha vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Cha Druid: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature since they have a third at-will, though a ranged basic attack added to the at-will arsenal could be interesting) Invoker: Wis vs Fort, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Wis. Shaman: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature through opportunity attacks) Sorcerer: (they already have multiple ways, and I don't actually care that it takes one of their at-wills) Ardent: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha Battlemind: Con vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Con Monk: Dex vs Refl, melee touch, implement, 1d8+Dex Psion: Int vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int Artificer: pick one, Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int, or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Int Assassin: pick one, Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex or Dex vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Dex Swordmage: Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int If these basic attack features were added to the classes in question, the playing platform would be more uniform, and Strength classes wouldn't have the upper hand for simply being a strength primary class. [/sblock] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why is/was melee training so bad?
Top