The subject says it all. I believe that stat requirements to not balance the game, in fact they unbalance it, and favor min-maxing.
Game balance should be maintain by using level requirements, and chains through other feats.
My main problem with stat requirements is that they are not fun, and sometimes a Player cannot take the feats that he wants because he doesn't happen to be able to achieve a certain ability score. Ridiculous.
|
My main problem with stat requirements is that they are not fun, and sometimes a Player cannot take the feats that he wants because he doesn't happen to be able to achieve a certain ability score. Ridiculous.
So why not set the ability scores such that a player CAN take the feat he wants?
What feats are a problem for you? Why do you think they shouldn't use whatever ability score they have?
I think the feats as they are, are fine.
The subject says it all. I believe that stat requirements to not balance the game, in fact they unbalance it, and favor min-maxing.
Game balance should be maintain by using level requirements, and chains through other feats.
My main problem with stat requirements is that they are not fun, and sometimes a Player cannot take the feats that he wants because he doesn't happen to be able to achieve a certain ability score. Ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree. Many feats scream for minimum stat requirements. Power Attack is gauged for a combatant who is looking to sacrifice accuracy for damage. Likewise, Dodge invokes the idea of a swift, dextrous character. Would it really make any sense for a weak character to have Power Attack? What sense does it make for a clumsy character to have Dodge?
In addition, characters are usually created with an idea of their future development in mind. Character concepts, whether they are decided before or after rolling dice/assigning stats usually work. If you have a fighter that you want to have Power Attack, and you couldn't spare a 13 for Strength, you either have an abysmal set of stats and need a reroll, or your concept needs tweaking.
My counter argument is that who are you to say which feat is to invoke what in a given player's character concept? Why should a given player be limited to only what you think a given feat invokes, in terms of stats? What is gained by this rule? Many feats, are in fact, actually skills that anybody could learn, such as Two-weapon fighting. Having studied filipino kali, arnis & escrima, and not being the most dextrous person on earth, I know from experience that anyone can learn to fight furiously with a weapon in each, and be deadly with either. It doesn't take innate ability. What it takes is practice. I am FOR limiting choice when it affects game balance, but I am AGAINST limiting choice when it affects character concept.