There's no reason why an enemy couldn't have such a power, and I'd be surprised if none did in 4e.As long as the enemies can do the same thing back to the PCs, I'd be fine with this.
But if it's PC-only? Very, very hard no.
There's no reason why an enemy couldn't have such a power, and I'd be surprised if none did in 4e.As long as the enemies can do the same thing back to the PCs, I'd be fine with this.
But if it's PC-only? Very, very hard no.
So I played a Seeker, and many of it's powers were strictly inferior to those of other controllers. And one of it's support feats (available at Paragon) increased the damage of it's ranged basic attacks (?), not the sort of thing you'd expect from a controller class.
The Battlemind not having access to a decent melee basic attack meant that you could just walk away from one and unless they managed to have a decent Strength, their opportunity attack was anemic. The original feat that fixed this, letting you use another ability score to determine your basic attacks attack and damage was nerfed when Essentials came out to no longer give you your full damage.
Paladin marks were not terrifyingly damaging in the first place, and until Divine Sanction was added to powers later, they had no way to mark more than one foe.
It may be that your experience showed that a lackluster class could still perform quite well, but I actually watched a lot of optimization going on in order to make some of these classes shine, like the Sorcerer in my Scales of War group, who became a Demonskin Adept to get Demonsoul Bolts in order to give themselves a power that actually did Striker-level damage*.
Which would be more or less OK if those adventures had been - for any edition! - any good.
Definitely odd, in that you show it as having CG twice and LE not at all.Just checking here- Holmes Basic was a little odd, but it has LG, CG, CG, CE, and N.
Reductive how so? Your post appeared to suggest two approaches. One produce incoherent fiction. Hence the other seems preferable, especially as it fits more generally with what the game suggests as the way to approach it. Why is this offensive?I think this is very reductive to the point of offense and doesn't genuinely look to make any constructive connection.
Indeed.I'm not far into the World & Monsters book, but HOLY COW! This is really good reading and insight into the game.
Chaotic Good is, after all, the best alignment.Definitely odd, in that you show it as having CG twice and LE not at all.
Easy. I don't like the rule (and its underlying assumption) because it doesn't fit my view of how the game world should work. It doesn't make sense to me. With your point of view, it does make sense. But while I understand your point of view, I do not share it, so it doesn't make sense from my position. @Hussar covered this issue pretty well above, and it's not fixable.That first sentence doesn't make sense to me. Why would your preference mean that something contrary to that preference doesn't make sense?
I mean, you don't like CaGI. But look at the rules: they tell you that visible enemies within a certain distance close to adjacent. One reason they might do that is because they're already in the process of swarming you!
How does that not make sense just because you don't like the rule?
I do think that Unaligned was a great concept and of much greater general utility than "Gygaxian Muscular Neutral".