Search results

So, has anyone suggested yet that the DM compromise with the player? Let him play whatever he wants, then proceed to kill it ruthlessly. Repeat and rinse. Characters will perish in droves until the player finally creates the DM is happy with. There was a time when this was the obvious, routine...

Too bad. I rather liked London... But nine million dead in a week? World population is currently pushing a cool seven billion. Who knows what it is in ME's era. Reapers probably haven't made better than a .1% dent. Am I supposed to be impressed? :)

Wow. People are actually talking about this. Hope it continues in some fashion.

Yeah, that's another fishy thing about this situation. The guy starts out with a warlock--notorious for being the worst-performing striker at damage output--and then he wants to do this bad hybrid? And this guy is supposed to be a power gamer of some kind? Something ain't adding up.

Let's start with the part where I think you're wrong: don't try to enforce party diversity. Encourage? Yes. Enforce? No. The fact that there's already a rogue in the party shouldn't mean that other players are forbidden to play a rogue while the existing one draws breath. And this guy wasn't...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered about this, but we actually already do have a thread about this very topic right on the front page.

The fighter can certainly swing an entire encounter with the drop of a single power. A well-timed Come And Get It or Warrior's Urging is devastating. Note that this devastating quality is not primarily due to whether the character executing said power is a wizard or fighter, but the design of...

Well, if a player were to make the jump from playing weapon-users to an implement-user, here are the adjustments he'd need to make... * Get used to doing d6's and d8's as your base damage. * Get familiar what the word "resist" means. * Get used to the idea that when you take a feat that grants...

I agree with a lot of this. The proliferation of action-denial effects is one of the biggest unrecoverable fumbles of 4e, and it was made necessary by the decision that every class would entail an extensive suite of powers. When designing a new class amounts to building an entire grimorie of a...

I like the way the word "not" is bolded and underlined here. There is a serious lack of overassertive presumption of authority on the internet these days. Nice to see the void being filled.

You kind of countered your own position here. You are fine with IAoP but don't like BoMS creating "item favoritism" towards essentials classes. IAoP (and bracers of archery) are a significant "screw you" to implement wielders as they are. I play an epic-level sorcerer in one campaign, and it...

Since there's something of a lack of consensus on what controllers do--or should do--to be good at controlling things, it doesn't surprise me that they're considered nonessential personnel. Personally, I think the notion that control is about spamming out generic control effects like daze is a...

Well, like I said in the OP, there's already a feat called Versatile Duelist that would fit if it was worded a little differently (to focus on benefiting attacks and the sneak attack ability, without referring to powers). So, I guess somebody in a decision-making capacity was OK with it.

Many classes are fine the way they are--and yet, new options get added for them all the time. The essentials classes on the whole are a good example. Being "fine as it is" is no reason not to look a different option for someone to play with. I don't underestimate how often CA is available. Not...

I suspect they are balanced, which is why I replied to MrMyth that there isn't much problem in allowing the rogue more expansive weapon options at the expense the circumstanstial damage bonus when having CA.

Tossing out numbers for two characters doesn't indicate that it's the classes themselves that acount for the differenial. You're saying there's 37 points of difference between the theif and slayer, and nothing baked into the thief seems to suggest that kind of gulf is the norm.

In your previous post, you were comparing the thief's Weapon Finesse bonus to the slayer's Dex bonus to damage, and asserting that the former would exceed the latter. Acting on your comparison, I pointed out the erorr of not factoring in that the slayer's bonus also ramped. Now you are throwing...

It's not just you. The villains never came to the forefront in any way that made them engrossing, which is distinct from previous episodes. Rather, they were just nasty, evil baddies to be bumped off. When Chase finally got his due, I didn't care. There wasn't the emotional investment I got with...

You seem to be unaware that the slayer's damage bonus with all weapon attacks ramps up at a similar pace as the rogue, topping out at 8+Dex mod--or at least, you don't account for it. Advantage=Slayer Likewise, the rogue's +1 to hit with certain weapons is trumped by the slayer's +1 to hit with...

Let me put it likes this: why would any of this be a potential problem for the rogue, but not for the slayer? The latter class gets a non-conditional, unlimited usage +1 to hit and Dex bonus to damage on all of his attacks. His stances give him access to bigger damages than thse stances afforded...