Search results

If you're wondering why I haven't been responding in depth to your posts, here's a perfect example. I'm not making that argument. This notion you have in your head that I "don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers" is false. You accuse me of intellectual...

jorrit, you're absolutely right. Perhaps there is a greater whiff. Missing with something that does nothing if you miss. Either way, missing sucks in 4e. I'm in favor of anything that makes for less of it. Designing encounters with monsters with lower defenses, a feat that gives +1 to hit...

PHB2 is not yet published. My character build is producing a +10 to hit and everyone is fine with that. PHB2 is published, my character is suddenly not doing the average expected work anymore because it's not +11? Suddenly I'm dragging the party down because it's not +11? What nonsense...

Sure. That's a fair way to put it. I'm with you on that. The point that I was trying to make is that I consider the notion that the meaningfulness of my contribution to the team effort isn't mitigated by someone else's capabilities. I won't begrudge someone taking expertise to hit more often...

Only if they DM does it wrong. While I am generally a fan of 4e and believe that it meets it's design goals, I would say that it fails to accomplish this. Others might disagree, but I find that monsters of 7 levels higher cause many problems. Challenging players by choosing monsters that...

Umm. No. If that's the conclusion you're coming to, you're either misreading me or I'm not being clear. I agree completely. Your paragraph above is a mirror image of a post I made earlier in this thread. You said it better than I did. Once again, I agree completely. If someone can't...

Sorry, but it wasn't mockery. Some people really can't enjoy themselves if someone else is better than they are. They'll have to take expertise to "keep up" with everyone else. No different that getting a big screen tv you don't need to keep up with the Joneses. It's part of human nature...

About the whole relative to the performance of other PCs thing: If the guy to your right hits more than you, that doesn't mean you suck. D&D isn't about PvP, so it doesn't matter that another character has a big lead on your in to-hit bonsues as long as you are performing adequately against...

This is so less of an issue in 4th edition than it is in previous editions. In 4e you design encounters for the group. Even if one guy totally optimized, has a single attack stat build with a 18-20 (at level 1) and took expertise, and another person made a crappy character, the DM can...

Is there really a problem that needs to be solved? People are only having boring encounters where they feel like nothing they do works when the DM designs a bad encounter and includes monsters of too high a level. In the epic tier when people are supposedly the most behind in term of monster...

Right. According to what criteria does once consider the feat "eaten"? People take feats to accomplish things with their characters. If those feats accomplish those things, then it doesn't matter if some guy on the internet says it's sub-par or a poor build because it doesn't give the best...

D&D is definitely about combat. Even with quests and skill challenges, the majority of what you are rewarded for is combat. And you're rewarded with more combat potency. So I'm totally on the same page as you regarding everyone needing an appreciation of the combat system. I disagree that...

In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety). By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"? That one can get more combat potency out of not spending those feats and taking a...

I figured out what the problem is. In the DMG, you'll find on pages 8 through 10 a list of player types/motivations. Though not an exhaustive list, they include: Actor Explorer Instigator Power Gamer Slayer Storyteller Thinker Watcher Different people approach the game with different...

I must admit that I find what you're saying to be well... sad. In the games I run and play in, there isn't a drive towards eeking out every ounce of combat potency out of the builds. A solid third of the PCs started with 16s in their primary attack stats. Everyone does fine with the combats...

The gnome in question has an 18 in both INT and CHA, so the only difference is an extra +1 to hit from the feat. I've played in games where I had an 18 in my primary attack stat. I didn't feel overshadowed by the fighter or wizard with a 20 in their primary attack stat. +1 to hit? Big deal...

Say we multiplied the races by the classes (and their sub builds) and came up with a number of rough builds that one could make. What do you suppose the choice number would be for this feat for most of the builds? At what choice would it have to be in order for it to be considered a "must...

I know piracy has certainly helped my local gaming store. Seeing those PDFs of the core books on the net got me running D&D again. I also got my old gaming group to reactivate and we all bought the core books, many D&D miniatures boosters, dungeon tiles sets, dice sets, etc.,. Me getting back...

This is the realm of adventure design, rather than hard and fast rules. Pre-published modules will often outline exactly how a door is opened. For example, in the 2008 D&D day adventure, the secret entrance to the underground crypt was opened by placing statues on certain shelves. You might...

I don't buy it either. Neither do I buy that it's a must have for all characters at all times. I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a warlock/wizard multiclass and implement expertise isn't on my short list. It's something I'll probably consider for some time in the paragon tier...