Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
For instance, if an attack has a penalty of 20 and you have 30 recoil control, you get a net +10 accuracy compared to a regular attack.
*I was wrong, they do work!
Yeah, the strength requirement should be reduced to 6 similar to Armored Warfare, which strength requirement of 8 neither made sense.
Agreed
What's the argument in favor of lowering? "Making no sense" doesn't tell anything. I can counter with "it totally makes sense!" :P
But I'll bring an argument instead:
Stat requirements are good for creating a "tension" in the stat allocation, forcing you to sacrifice some aspects to gain others. We try not to over do it, but focusing on making it for some key builds. Burst attacks have the potential to be extremely powerful, so just outright lowering it to 6 would free up 2 stat points to use in something else like dex or per, which can feed into tipping bursts into an OP territory.
If the feat is not worth taking at 8, we can look into increasing its power, but lowering the requirement is not an option for me. The design goal is to reward investing into STR for these burst builds, not encouraging not to.
This is the argument for lowering it:
Following this 'logic' Armored Warfare should STILL have a strength requirement of 8, but instead of 'increasing its power' you lowered the strength requirement to 6!
Wearing a heavier armor will also help you to benefit from more Armor Handling.
You don't get extra bonuses for your armour if you're really good at wearing it, but even a short or focused burst benefits from high recoil control.
Also the reason we moved Armored Warfare to 6 was two create a "two step" investment into Strength, kinda like we have with other feats and stat requirements (some at 6, others at 8).
Also, as you said, it's a more general and context sensitive feat, as you need to have some particular armors to benefit from it and the handling part of it can cap out.
Those two reasons (having a feat for STR 6 investment and it being context dependent) made us chose to lower it. I don't see any of those reasons here.