A (brief) rant about circular discussions

[DDogwood]

But my rant was triggered by a specific instance of a common, general pattern that I have been observing ever since 4e came out. (I don't really remember it happening in Ye Olde Dayse of 3e.)

That's because, in 3e, the correct answer to "my character is weak against x" was "Play a Cleric or a Druid!"

4e is, generally, really well-balanced, which gives rise to new forms of foolishness as some people try vainly to "break" the system while others try to equate "balanced" with "the best thing since the invention of beef stew!"

 

[Danceofmasks]

Theme parties are all right I think. Drow Paladin, Drow Rogue, Drow Warlock, Drow Sorcerer, Drow Bard could make a pretty interesting group. On second thought, Drow Barbarian might be an interesting addition to the group as well.

Almost the party I had in mind ... got a ranger instead of a warlock.
Sorta want both a ranger and a rogue.
Ranger is looking at superior crossbow, sneak of shadows, and much later steady shooter & merciless killer to maximise twin shot DPR (especially after dropping a cloud).
Tactics include abuse of darkvision (no light sources), cloud of darkness cycling (CA + blindness is really dirty, especially for the paladin), intimidate bonus stacking ... the team could be quite disgusting.
But ... it's quite low on hp, and has moderately low fort across the board, and so has to rely on low novas and blind-lock to pick off fort-targeting foes.