PDA

View Full Version : [4e] What do you think of this house rule?



Faleldir
2010-08-15, 07:55 PM
If I decided that Centered Breath and Iron Soul Monks used Wisdom and Constitution respectively for melee basic attacks, would that be fair, or would I have to give Stone Fist Monks something?

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-15, 08:07 PM
I thought there was already a feat that allowed you to use a non-Strength stat for melee basic attacks.

What's the reason for giving those monks this feat for free?

Gralamin
2010-08-15, 08:16 PM
It's basically saving on a single feat. The value of the feat varies based on how many extra basic attacks are likely. So its hard to say. I'd imagine that, for example, making "Psionic Tradition" feats that enhanced certain at-will powers, including allowing them to use a power as a MBA, wouldn't be unbalanced. (See Domains in Divine power for an example - the Skill domain for instance.)

Faleldir
2010-08-15, 08:34 PM
What's the reason for giving those monks this feat for free?
It's not even their main stat, so it would be strictly worse than Melee Training.

NMBLNG
2010-08-15, 11:06 PM
I don't think it's a BAD house rule, as it is pretty much just a free feat.

However, I don't see it as a good house rule, namely that I don't see the need for it. Care to explain?

Urpriest
2010-08-15, 11:35 PM
Here's the problem: you're quite obviously doing this because Stone Fist monks have Str as a secondary stat, and thus by default have better melee basic attacks than Centered Breath monks. However, Stone Fist monks generally won't have a Str high enough to make melee basic attacks viable anyway, due to Dex being such a desirable stat. As such, you're solving a problem that doesn't really exist. That said, if you feel that it's a problem then this is a perfectly acceptable solution.

Faleldir
2010-08-16, 12:12 AM
However, I don't see it as a good house rule, namely that I don't see the need for it. Care to explain?
The way I see it, you're going to want to make MBAs eventually even if you're not optimized for it. When an enemy provokes an OA, no matter how rarely, there's no reason not to try. What if you're dazed, and the only way to attack is to charge? What if you get a free MBA from an ally's power? You can say you just won't make MBAs ever, but I don't think that's entirely within your control. Using a secondary stat keeps your MBAs 5-15% behind your class powers instead of 40%.

tcrudisi
2010-08-16, 01:25 AM
Giving out Melee Training (so characters can use their primary stat to attack with) and Versatile Expertise (so everyone gets a +1 to their chosen weapon/implement) are considered normal house-rules. In fact, I encourage it.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 01:35 AM
The way I see it, you're going to want to make MBAs eventually even if you're not optimized for it. When an enemy provokes an OA, no matter how rarely, there's no reason not to try. What if you're dazed, and the only way to attack is to charge? What if you get a free MBA from an ally's power? You can say you just won't make MBAs ever, but I don't think that's entirely within your control. Using a secondary stat keeps your MBAs 5-15% behind your class powers instead of 40%.
I guess I don't see why you wouldn't do this for all classes then.

I mean, Monks aren't even Defenders - Strikers don't need to have good OAs to function in their roles. By comparison, Defenders with weak OAs are substantially less effective at their roles since baddies will start just walking by the Defenders instead of worrying about getting smacked.

You might as well just give everyone Melee Training (their choice) for free instead of carving out a special exception for Monks.

That said - it's not breaking the game, and so long as you realize you're buffing Monks specifically, it's cool.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-16, 02:49 AM
Arguably, Melee Training is a math fix, just like the Expertise feats are. That said, if you believe such a change is in order, it should apply to all classes.

Leolo
2010-08-16, 05:38 AM
The Problem is: If you consider this a math fix - what would be no math fix?

For example rogues will have better dex than clerics. Is a feat that let clerics use wisdom for initiative rolls a "math fix"? And should all classes get this as a bonus feat, so that everyone could use his highest ability score for initiative?

What about charisma for social interactions? Is it fair that the brawny rogue is never as good in bluffing than the artful dodger? Should he get some inherit ability to use strenght instead?

If you think such changes to their logical conclusion than no difference will stay between classes.

It is part of the game that some characters make better mbas, while other roll higher initiative or use their intelligence to identify monsters and use tactical advantages.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-16, 05:55 AM
The Problem is: If you consider this a math fix - what would be no math fix?
Well, that's why I said "arguably". I'm not convinced that Expertise is a required math fix either, and neither are the paragon/epic defense feats.

The point is that some classes, according to their description, should be good at making melee basic attacks, whereas in practice they're not, and that this hampers their effectiveness in combat. The principle that you should always be able to use your highest attribute bonus to make attacks is pretty much ingrained in 4E, as indicated by many racial, feat, PP, or ED powers.

It doesn't say on the brawny rogue's description that he's good at bluffing, nor on the cleric's that he's supposed to be fast, so examples like that don't hold.

Faleldir
2010-08-16, 08:52 AM
No one said this is the ONLY class I'm buffing. Normally I would make a power for this, as I did for the Rogue and Swordmage, but that would make Unarmed Combatant useless.
This thread is over.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 09:02 AM
This thread is over.
So mote it be :smalltongue: