Cha- or Dex-based Basic Attacks (PEACH) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Cha- or Dex-based Basic Attacks (PEACH)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Astos
Jul 29, 2008 12:44:49 Hello,

I am DMing a 4th Edition campaign with a Charisma Paladin, a Tactical Warlord, a Dexterity/Charisma Rogue, and a Warlock. The issue that we have run into and anticipate running into even more in the future, particularly with the Paladin, is that when the Paladin gets to take OAs or basic attacks for some reason, they suck, because his Strength is low.

To fix this, I am considering allowing people to create an At-will attack that uses their classes' primary attribute if it is something other than Strength (for melee) or Dex (for Ranged). Example:

Paladin Basic Attack - At will, Cha vs. AC, [W] + Cha to damage.

My question is, are there any balance issues I am not seeing here that would make this too powerful?

Here is my reasoning so far:

2. A Str-based paladin gets good basic attacks; Cha-based paladin does not. Is the Cha-based paladin more powerful in some way than Str-based? Is it the skill bonuses? Is that significant? I don't really see why it would be a huge power difference. Cha has a few more skills associated with it than Str, but does it make a huge difference in a balance calculus such that you make their basic attack suck?

3. Wizards and Warlocks get At-Wills as basic attacks, which is more powerful than I propose above.

4. Heavy Blade Opportunist gives you At-Wills for OAs, which is more powerful than I describe above. Also, I have noticed a tendency for Cha paladins especially to feel almost forced into HB Opportunist in order to have decent OAs, which solves the problem for most people but not groups with a Warlord granting basic attacks.

5. If there are any balance issues, do they outweigh the fact that in order to coordinate a party with a Warlord you would have to pick a certain path in each class--IE, Strength for melee--in order to be effective synergizing with the Warlord? That seems sort of crappy to me. I would much rather my players have choices in what they play and still feel effective, if it is possible without breaking things.

So, am I missing something? Any insights you can give or landmines you can reveal, I would appreciate.

Thanks!
#2
olfactatron
Jul 29, 2008 13:02:42 I'm sure this same problem has come up in most groups. I've personally wondered why weapon finesse was removed. Add dex instead of str with a light weapon on basic attacks seem perfectly balanced to me. I understand the need to make the classes not single stat based and to have all the abilities count in some respects, but I don't see why a feat couldn't do this especially for CHA paladins who effectively have to keep 3 stats (Cha, Con, and Str, Wis is just icing on the cake if you an afford it) fairly strong.
#3
machmoth
Jul 29, 2008 14:47:54 Strength is made as the basic melee attack stat, without exception, because if characters like a Paladin chose to boost his charisma-based abilities at the cost of his basic melee, that is the balance he chose. There shouldn't ever be a "do it all" ability, like was often the case in older versions.

Powers help offset the need, for example, a dex-heavy rogue has at-wills he should be using in melee to take advantage of that fact, not his basic melee attacks, and if his strength is significantly lower than his dexterity, he should be using his at-wills every single round.

The Paladin probably shouldn't have gone with a low strength, for the reason he's finding out now, if he intended to fill a defender role. Defenders in general need to make OAs, and so need Strength to perform them, even if that isn't what he's focusing on with his normal attacks. It seems he chose to focus on his support and ranged abilities, which comes at the cost of his melee and defending abilities.

On to the reasoning:
1. All rogues are dex-based rogues. Almost every power calls for it, and there's very few exceptions to why you'd ever make it second to something else. Whether you focus on strength or not is a balancing act with your charisma. Charisma rogues are not as good at basic attacks, but have other advantages, such as mobility.

2. Paladins do have to play a balancing act with Strength and Charisma. Strength heavy paladins lose out some on their abilities and damage, but can hold the front lines better, where as charisma paladins are almost clerics. How is your paladin's wisdom? He might even consider multi-classing into cleric a little to emphasize this focus.

3. Wizards and Warlocks get ranged basic attacks, which are far less useful than melee basic attacks, since OAs are melee. Far fewer effects call for or boost ranged basic attacks.

4. HBO still requires Str 15 and Dex 15. If you have a strength of 15, you're already on your way to a reasonable strength score. If your dexterity is 15 on a paladin, you probably let some more useful attribute get the shaft, or were spending attribute bonuses that could've gone into strength and charisma on it.

5. A well synergized party will always be more effective. That's not rule balance, that's just strategy. The Warlord seems the odd-man out in this situation, and since he's a leader, that can be rough. Rather than asking the other characters to build around him, I'd let him reselect his powers to be ones more useful for everyone else.
#4
Astos
Jul 29, 2008 15:24:24 Machmoth,

You are right about the rogue; my mistake. For some reason I thought Brawny Rogues uses Strength to attack, but looking at it again I see that it is Dex primary as well. Thank you. Editing that out of my post above.

The main problem is the paladin, though. I read your post. Thank you for the feedback.

You make the point that a Charisma-based paladin would have a stat that "does everything". Could you explain? The Charisma line for the paladin has a whole series of attacks, just like Strength. Strength has OA advantage, Charisma perhaps has a skill advantage. The only other thing I can see is that Charisma adds a little extra damage to Divine Challenge.

Am I missing something, here? If the only real difference is that the Strength paladin is better at locking down people with OAs, and the Charisma paladin is better at locking them down with Divine Challenge, then is that a big enough balance difference to worry about? If so, do you or anyone else have suggestions on how one might handle it while still letting the paladin get a +Cha attack on a basic attack?

Here is my bottom line: I don't want to force my players to completely change their characters in order to "synergize" if the reason for forcing them to do that is a very small game balance concern. We are the sort of players that get character ideas in our heads first, and then do our best to "synergize" them afterwards. Changing someone from a Warlord to a Cleric or from a Charisma Paladin to a Strength Paladin are big changes that I don't want to impose on them in order for them to use their abilities effectively.

Any ideas on how to accomplish that goal?

Low Powered Idea: Heroic teir feat with an 15 Cha requirement that allows you to do Cha vs. AC, [W] (no bonus to damage from Charisma) on a basic melee or ranged attack? Then at least it might hit, and it would get weapon bonuses, etc. (Then maybe upgrade it with a second feat at Paragon to let it use bonus Cha damage?)

Higher Powered Idea: Heroic teir feat with a 15 Cha requirement that allows you to do Cha vs. AC, [W] + Cha for a basic melee or ranged attack.
#5
machmoth
Jul 29, 2008 18:10:46 Would seem I wasn't totally spot on. Giving the class another once-over, it seems Paladins weren't really built around allowing one type or the other, but more so Strength definitely being good (several powers and basic melee), Charisma falling in second (boosting half of the powers and certain abilities), Wisdom in third (supports some abilities). Both Strength and Charisma are important for the class's general operation, and if you made a low-charisma paladin, you'd probably find yourself as an underrated fighter.

So, what we really have in this paladin is one not really built as the class was designed. Given your situation, I think I would agree and follow your idea and fluff something up to match your player's concept. In these cases, I try to avoid just saying "your charisma is good? Alright, use that instead." Since the deviation is a matter of having his own concept on the character, I try to tailor a solution to that character's concept. I'm not entirely sure what that concept is, but here's some off-the-top ideas.

#6
Astos
Jul 30, 2008 10:02:10 Thank you for the feedback! I will probably end up doing something like that.
#7
geei
Jul 30, 2008 13:05:49 It is important to note that yes, the difference in skills is a significant balancing factor due to 4th's mechanics for skill challenges and the fact that they can give as much xp as a combat encounter.
#8
master-of-puppets
Aug 02, 2008 15:40:54 also, CHA based attacks are this side of the line more powerfull than STR based attacks, thats why you trade of that power

(im running a CHA based paladin and I picked up the power charger feat, and it keeps beeing interesting for me to charge [basic attack])

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Astos Jul 29, 2008 12:44:49	Hello, I am DMing a 4th Edition campaign with a Charisma Paladin, a Tactical Warlord, a Dexterity/Charisma Rogue, and a Warlock. The issue that we have run into and anticipate running into even more in the future, particularly with the Paladin, is that when the Paladin gets to take OAs or basic attacks for some reason, they suck, because his Strength is low. To fix this, I am considering allowing people to create an At-will attack that uses their classes' primary attribute if it is something other than Strength (for melee) or Dex (for Ranged). Example: Paladin Basic Attack - At will, Cha vs. AC, [W] + Cha to damage. My question is, are there any balance issues I am not seeing here that would make this too powerful? Here is my reasoning so far: 2. A Str-based paladin gets good basic attacks; Cha-based paladin does not. Is the Cha-based paladin more powerful in some way than Str-based? Is it the skill bonuses? Is that significant? I don't really see why it would be a huge power difference. Cha has a few more skills associated with it than Str, but does it make a huge difference in a balance calculus such that you make their basic attack suck? 3. Wizards and Warlocks get At-Wills as basic attacks, which is more powerful than I propose above. 4. Heavy Blade Opportunist gives you At-Wills for OAs, which is more powerful than I describe above. Also, I have noticed a tendency for Cha paladins especially to feel almost forced into HB Opportunist in order to have decent OAs, which solves the problem for most people but not groups with a Warlord granting basic attacks. 5. If there are any balance issues, do they outweigh the fact that in order to coordinate a party with a Warlord you would have to pick a certain path in each class--IE, Strength for melee--in order to be effective synergizing with the Warlord? That seems sort of crappy to me. I would much rather my players have choices in what they play and still feel effective, if it is possible without breaking things. So, am I missing something? Any insights you can give or landmines you can reveal, I would appreciate. Thanks!
#2 olfactatron Jul 29, 2008 13:02:42	I'm sure this same problem has come up in most groups. I've personally wondered why weapon finesse was removed. Add dex instead of str with a light weapon on basic attacks seem perfectly balanced to me. I understand the need to make the classes not single stat based and to have all the abilities count in some respects, but I don't see why a feat couldn't do this especially for CHA paladins who effectively have to keep 3 stats (Cha, Con, and Str, Wis is just icing on the cake if you an afford it) fairly strong.
#3 machmoth Jul 29, 2008 14:47:54	Strength is made as the basic melee attack stat, without exception, because if characters like a Paladin chose to boost his charisma-based abilities at the cost of his basic melee, that is the balance he chose. There shouldn't ever be a "do it all" ability, like was often the case in older versions. Powers help offset the need, for example, a dex-heavy rogue has at-wills he should be using in melee to take advantage of that fact, not his basic melee attacks, and if his strength is significantly lower than his dexterity, he should be using his at-wills every single round. The Paladin probably shouldn't have gone with a low strength, for the reason he's finding out now, if he intended to fill a defender role. Defenders in general need to make OAs, and so need Strength to perform them, even if that isn't what he's focusing on with his normal attacks. It seems he chose to focus on his support and ranged abilities, which comes at the cost of his melee and defending abilities. On to the reasoning: 1. All rogues are dex-based rogues. Almost every power calls for it, and there's very few exceptions to why you'd ever make it second to something else. Whether you focus on strength or not is a balancing act with your charisma. Charisma rogues are not as good at basic attacks, but have other advantages, such as mobility. 2. Paladins do have to play a balancing act with Strength and Charisma. Strength heavy paladins lose out some on their abilities and damage, but can hold the front lines better, where as charisma paladins are almost clerics. How is your paladin's wisdom? He might even consider multi-classing into cleric a little to emphasize this focus. 3. Wizards and Warlocks get ranged basic attacks, which are far less useful than melee basic attacks, since OAs are melee. Far fewer effects call for or boost ranged basic attacks. 4. HBO still requires Str 15 and Dex 15. If you have a strength of 15, you're already on your way to a reasonable strength score. If your dexterity is 15 on a paladin, you probably let some more useful attribute get the shaft, or were spending attribute bonuses that could've gone into strength and charisma on it. 5. A well synergized party will always be more effective. That's not rule balance, that's just strategy. The Warlord seems the odd-man out in this situation, and since he's a leader, that can be rough. Rather than asking the other characters to build around him, I'd let him reselect his powers to be ones more useful for everyone else.
#4 Astos Jul 29, 2008 15:24:24	Machmoth, You are right about the rogue; my mistake. For some reason I thought Brawny Rogues uses Strength to attack, but looking at it again I see that it is Dex primary as well. Thank you. Editing that out of my post above. The main problem is the paladin, though. I read your post. Thank you for the feedback. You make the point that a Charisma-based paladin would have a stat that "does everything". Could you explain? The Charisma line for the paladin has a whole series of attacks, just like Strength. Strength has OA advantage, Charisma perhaps has a skill advantage. The only other thing I can see is that Charisma adds a little extra damage to Divine Challenge. Am I missing something, here? If the only real difference is that the Strength paladin is better at locking down people with OAs, and the Charisma paladin is better at locking them down with Divine Challenge, then is that a big enough balance difference to worry about? If so, do you or anyone else have suggestions on how one might handle it while still letting the paladin get a +Cha attack on a basic attack? Here is my bottom line: I don't want to force my players to completely change their characters in order to "synergize" if the reason for forcing them to do that is a very small game balance concern. We are the sort of players that get character ideas in our heads first, and then do our best to "synergize" them afterwards. Changing someone from a Warlord to a Cleric or from a Charisma Paladin to a Strength Paladin are big changes that I don't want to impose on them in order for them to use their abilities effectively. Any ideas on how to accomplish that goal? Low Powered Idea: Heroic teir feat with an 15 Cha requirement that allows you to do Cha vs. AC, [W] (no bonus to damage from Charisma) on a basic melee or ranged attack? Then at least it might hit, and it would get weapon bonuses, etc. (Then maybe upgrade it with a second feat at Paragon to let it use bonus Cha damage?) Higher Powered Idea: Heroic teir feat with a 15 Cha requirement that allows you to do Cha vs. AC, [W] + Cha for a basic melee or ranged attack.
#5 machmoth Jul 29, 2008 18:10:46	Would seem I wasn't totally spot on. Giving the class another once-over, it seems Paladins weren't really built around allowing one type or the other, but more so Strength definitely being good (several powers and basic melee), Charisma falling in second (boosting half of the powers and certain abilities), Wisdom in third (supports some abilities). Both Strength and Charisma are important for the class's general operation, and if you made a low-charisma paladin, you'd probably find yourself as an underrated fighter. So, what we really have in this paladin is one not really built as the class was designed. Given your situation, I think I would agree and follow your idea and fluff something up to match your player's concept. In these cases, I try to avoid just saying "your charisma is good? Alright, use that instead." Since the deviation is a matter of having his own concept on the character, I try to tailor a solution to that character's concept. I'm not entirely sure what that concept is, but here's some off-the-top ideas.
#6 Astos Jul 30, 2008 10:02:10	Thank you for the feedback! I will probably end up doing something like that.
#7 geei Jul 30, 2008 13:05:49	It is important to note that yes, the difference in skills is a significant balancing factor due to 4th's mechanics for skill challenges and the fact that they can give as much xp as a combat encounter.
#8 master-of-puppets Aug 02, 2008 15:40:54	also, CHA based attacks are this side of the line more powerfull than STR based attacks, thats why you trade of that power (im running a CHA based paladin and I picked up the power charger feat, and it keeps beeing interesting for me to charge [basic attack])