Search results

Really? I don't (and have never) seen an 8 as a "very low stat" in any edition of D&D. Sure, it's worse than average, but that's what I see it as. In fact (even when not optimising for an 18) I almost always make sure I have an 8 expressly for RP reasons, and I've never found having an 8 to...

Sure, I realise the math behind it, but we're talking about a game here where psychological elements come into play as much as pure math. I could buff the ranger, and have a 3 out of 4 chance that he'd still miss anyway and my buff would be wasted, or buff the rogue and only have a 1 in 4...

The "As in 3e", which directly precedes the part you've bolded, is largely my problem with your bolding and subsequent commentary. Edit to make the post (and whole thread of conversation) a bit more useful to the OP: To me, the important part of the post is this bit: Someone reading the 4e...

I know this wasn't the case, for a couple of reasons: Firstly, the rest of the party (apart from the ranger) were barely threatened. I think we spent a grand total of 1 or 2 healing surges between us, and a couple of dailies each (given that one of these for my character was the Evards he uses...

I agree entirely. The player of the ranger has made a series of bad choices - as I pointed out in a earlier post. As in 3e, the gulf between optimised and non-optimsed characters is very wide at high levels. That was kind of my initial point - someone reading the 4e propaganda could be forgiven...

Ok, I have to reply to this because I think I'm being a bit misunderstood: When I said "generalist", I said it in the context of the 3e generalist. 14s across the board got you: +2 to hit and damage with ranged attacks +2 to hit and damage with melee attacks +2 hp/level +2 AC +2 to Fort, Ref...

I agree this is becoming a tangent. Suffice to say that IME there were many ways to make a playable 3e generalist who wasn't noticably worse than the rest of the party (multiclassing, monks/paladins who were somewhat forced to because of MAD, as you point out, rogue/bard). In 3e, you at least...

Yeah, I saw that a bit too, although I never really played much 3e beyond about 15th level. We had one campaign get up around 23rd, all the rest ended by 15th (one way or another). For me, 4e specialisation kicks in right from 1st level, as evidenced by how incredulous you seem at the rangers...

Not necessary. The player fell into the trap of making a generalist in 4e. He decided he wanted to be good at both melee and ranged combat, therefore he started with 14s in both Str and Dex, and then treated them as his "primary" stats and split his primary level bumps between Str and Dex, and...

Both statements can be true. I don't dispute that 3e definitely rewarded specialists (certainly the "specialist" classes were usually better than the "generalist" ones and there was encouragement to take a high primary ability score for those specialist classes), but with 4e it certainly seems...

Who said anything about everyone sucking? Before PHB2 was released we were all a lot lower level (around 13th - 14th from memory as we were just starting P2) and the difference was a lot less pronounced. Since then, we've gained a few levels and the difference between those with and without...

Yep, that's definitely been our experience. We typically get about 2 encounters (3 in a good session) in about a 3-4 hour gaming session. Yes and no. As I said above, a lot of powers are "insta-win", as in, once they're used there's really only one way an encounter is going to go. However...

I guess it depend on your definition of handicapped, but no, he wasn't intentionally gimped. My observation of the character/encounter: The PC is more RP focussed than combat focussed. For example: I think he is the only PC with the skill training feat, plus he had a much more "realistic"...

That hasn't been our experience. We're in early Epic levels now (22nd), and a couple of things have become evident since about mid-Paragon (level 16+): The gulf in difference between optimised and non-optimised PCs. Last session, our optimised characters were having an easy time of it, whereas...

The general rules for symbiotes (as well as specific rules for a couple of items plus an artifact) can be found in the Free RPG Day adventure, Khybers Harvest. :)

Yeah, and personally I think that would have been a *much* better story to tell. Psionics has always been around, because the Far Realm has always been around, but for some reason the Far Realm is encroaching more on reality, resulting in the rise of Psionics. The encroachment corrupts some, but...

Sure, but define "basic character abilities". There's nothing inherent in the class features that lets the fighter push. So you're defining using a power as a "basic character ability"? A lot of the "exploits" rely on the way the RAW work with certain powers (rain of blows, cascade of blades)...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you there, and those are the sorts of games I prefer. However, I'd say *most* DMs/groups have some element of rules interpretation, otherwise you get into those silly "well, the rules as written don't prevent me for doing infinite damage this round" type...

Well, fully aside from flavor issues, the main problems with Rogue are: 1) he would never attack a foe from behind (aka flanking) so he'd be fairly mechanically gimped by missing out on one of the rogues main class features (sneak attack). 2) he wielded his katana 2 handed, so the best...

Without knowing the details of the character, this one doesn't seem *too* hard to me. Seems like it'd be a character focussed on Wis, possibly a bit of Int and/or Cha? I think it'd work very well as a cleric/multi-class wizard (illusionist-build), or even a wizard (illusionist)/multi-class...