Community

Jul 22, 2011 -- 6:41AM, Einlanzer wrote:

So, there are three things about 4e that really bother me:

1. The overpowered focus/defense feats that grant absurd bonuses
2. The absence of masterwork weapons (despite having masterwork armor)
3. The lack of attractiveness of stats that aren't tied to  your class abilities


Here are my potential fixes:
1. Your NAD modifier comes from both relevant stats (combine them), not just the highest.
2. The weapon focus/defense oriented feats only grant a static +1/+2 respectively (and there aren't multiple versions)
3. The other +2 from weapon focus are implemented into masterwork weapons.


Now,  I know that #1 in particular will be controversial.  It means  that  a  character could potentially have a sky-high modifier.   Personally, I   don't see too much of a problem with this.  It could  never happen to   more than one of the NAD's for the given character,  and you should not   be punished for wanting to have a high int and a  dex, for example.  The   early game should be fairly easy anyway, and it  would balance itself  out  over time.   

Thoughts? 

No, no and no. The math is fine. If you go messing with it too much,   you  break the game worse than what you think is already broken.

Jul 22, 2011 -- 7:18AM, Einlanzer wrote:

In addition to #1 giving the character (potentially) a   single unhittable NAD, it also ensures that the other NADs will be hit   on a 2+ because there is absolutely no way to boost them to a proper   level if you have a 10 in each and there are no feats to bump them.
I doubt anyone is going to invest a heavy score in an off-ability for that little NAD bonus, it's not going to save them.

I actually thought of that, and I thought  it would help encourage  players to balance their stats out a little more  rather than  min/maxing, which IMO would be a good thing.  Also, the  feats are still  there they just grant a static +2 instead of scaling to  +4.  It needs  playtesting, sure, and it may turn out to not be that  great.

Except there's no need to balance your stats. That's what your party is   for. 1 persons weakness is another persons strength. It helps so that   CoDzilas and Wizards from hell arn't dominating the entirety of the  game  anymore while their party sits back with their thumbs up their  ass.

Jul 22, 2011 -- 7:26AM, Pluisjen wrote:

I don't think it'd help. Those  defense feats give a pretty big bump, there is no way you can get your  ability scores high enough. Being able to add your two twelves together  in no way compensates for Iron Will's +4 bonus. 

You'll always  have a net loss, and while it might compensate slightly if you decide to  spread your stats out, you won't be able to go about a 12 or maybe a 14 somewhere before you really start gimping your main stat. 

This is why the defense feat fix doesn't work. And this is also to say nothing of players that roll their stats in home games.

Jul 22, 2011 -- 8:06AM, Einlanzer wrote:

It really drives me crazy how min/max oriented 4e is.  I want to investigate other ways to rearrange things so that characters can still have "good stats" and "bad stats" without the divide being so huge like it is now, where you have some incentive to put points in INT or STR regardless of your class.  I hate that about 4e.

I think it would be cool if each stat had a generalized use in combat, like using INT to scan enemies for weaknesses, WIS to get bonus experience, CHA to cause some type of debuff, etc.   

You DO have incentive to put points into other things. Racial abilities, meeting prerequisites, skill usage, defenses. The problems you seem to be having are not that big of a concern, and you will always have to spread yourself between at least 3 stats in many instances. With how the system is set up, that's more than enough. If your monster knowledge checks sucks as a Rogue, let the Cleric and Swordmage handle it. If your bad at melee as a Wizard, the Warlord and the Barbarian have you covered. You cannot be great at everything, and when you try to be, you're not good at anything. Focus on what you do best and don't worry about the things you don't need to concern yourself with. No one is going to get on a Fighter's ass about having no idea what happened in the Battle of Dunloray, because he's probably not schooled in History.

4e is fine and balanced as a game. Players are what make the things broken by min/maxing. But instead of fixing the math so that they're not busted, throw them up against things a bit tougher than they've expected. A group of fully optimized players will still have trouble against a good controller monster with a lurker in the same fight. Let them have their moments of glory whether they optimize or not. You can always make them sweat it a bit when they face the dragon in two or three fights.

Jul 22, 2011 -- 10:48AM, Pluisjen wrote:

Jul 22, 2011 -- 8:06AM, Einlanzer wrote:

It really drives me crazy how min/max oriented 4e is.

It's actually not. Not at all. Players make it like that, for absolutely no reason. This is the first version of D&D I've seen where you don't have to min-max to be effective. The only thing you need is a good main score, of abot 16. A decent secondary is nice, but a 14 will do if it has to.

That leaves you with plenty of points to put in other abilities if you want to bump certain skills or get certain feats or whatever the reason for bumping that ability is.

Not entirely true, mainly because all classes have 3 good stats and 3 dump stats.  In previous editions, most classes had one main stat and everything else was pretty equivalent.  In this version, you punish yourself pretty easily by rasing stats that are unimportant to your class, which is often times arbitrary and nonsensical (like Int for a rogue).