Search results

That's pretty much I've done - handled it via one house rule or another. I'm not disagreeing with that being pretty much the option we have at this point - that doesn't mean we shouldn't offer our opinions on what we think would make for a better game. In any case, as mentioned above, I was...

It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve. I noted above how the gap between optimized and average widened from +6 to +9 with the presence of Expertise. So, at Epic levels, prior to...

Yeah, I'm... not sure that is an accurate depiction of folks who optimize. Nor do I think there is some sort of binary between "fun and entertaining player invested in RP and character development who you enjoy playing with" and "optimizer who is about nothing but numbers and damage." Many...

Fair enough. I do certainly get what you are saying - if a player feels the need to take Expertise instead of an RP feat, wouldn't they feel the same urge with Superior Weapon Proficiency or similar choices? And there may be some truth to that. Still, though, I think the sheer difference in...

I think the Superior Weapons/Implements are close behind Expertise in being universal, but none of the others even come close. And even the Superior Weapons... if I upgrade to a really cool weapon, it might give me +1 to hit. Or, more often, will give me an extra +1 or so damage per W, or...

P/A stance? The feats never help make up the difference. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the...

I think I disagree, both about the fault being on the DM, and the ease by which this can be done. If there is a flaw in the game, then yes, a good DM can overcome it. But that doesn't mean the flaw still didn't originate in the rules themselves, and in an ideal system, he shouldn't have to...

All it really did was mitigate the effect of the combo when going after multiple targets. On a single target, it remains just as good - once the Vulnerability is in place, all your attacks against that guy automatically have CA and do +5 damage. The combo remains intact.

I don't think that's a fair attack to make, or one that is especially appreciated. I find that one of 4E's strengths, when it came out, was in making viable for different types of characters to play at the same table and both capable of contribution. The optimized character could be built to be...

Well, sure, I'll be honest - no, no I wouldn't. I would most likely take plenty of feats that give mechanical benefits, and plenty of feats that enhance flavor and concept. What I would not do is constantly have Expertise feats hovering overhead as simply better choices than anything else...

My advice, inasmuch as I can give any this far removed from a situation I've only learned about secondhand... ...would be to continue playing the game on every other week. Keep your five players, rather than kicking anyone out of the group, because that will hurt friendships. (And just to be...

Which, in this case, would remove the confusion referenced in that thread. He's confused by the Warlock having no curse, more limited choices, and other differences between the Essentials builds and the previous versions. A new player entering the game with Essentials wouldn't have any of...

I think 'invalidated' is pretty darn strong. It could have been better (more like, say, the Gamma World set), but it does work for what it sets out to do - show someone how the game works, help them figure out a character, run them through the basics. As for Essentials, I don't think that...

Not entirely sure where to comment here, since there seems to be, like, 3 or 4 different elements of discussion at play: player skill vs character skill, DM fiat vs structured rulings, improvisation vs a strict list of powers... For myself, in nearly all these categories, I tend to find that...

My Epic game consisted of a party of 5 strikers and 1 defender. (Well, 1 of them was a controller, but was a beast form druid that was basically handled as a striker.) I threw Level+4 encounters and above at them - with MM3 level damage expressions - and they were able to handle it. Fighters...

Well, keep in mind that Come and Get It was always an outlier in working that way - and that is now no longer the case. Still, the problem remains in the form of daily powers where stuff happens on a Miss or via an Effect. The answer, in my opinion, is to absolutely say "that doesn't...

Heh, yeah, didn't see the tag, but wasn't assuming it was coincedence. Of the various side card games in such RPGs, I think that one was always my favorite, so interesting to see it still around elsewhere. :)

Art might be from pre-existing sources - I recognized one of the dragons as being from the cover of the novel "Fire Sea" from the Death Gate Cycle. Play seems almost identical to 'Triple Triad', the card game from Final Fantasy 8. Same grid, format, rules, etc. Only weird thing is the...

In my experience, the majority of MM1 monsters were basically ok against an average group, but provided no real challenge against a truly hyper-optimized group like Aegeri presents. And, more than that, were especially vulnerable to certain tactics - such as stuns vs solos, or having even minor...

Count me in as someone who never really liked how this worked, and was a big part of my dislike for 'weapons as implements' as a whole. I mean, I can sympathize for those who built their characters around it, sure. But I think the change is good for the game as a whole.