Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6329777" data-attributes="member: 87792">PCs also get feats (monsters don't) and a lot more powers than any monster.  I don't believe the to hit rate falling behind was actually a mistake in the maths at all.Other than that as soon as it exceeds +2 (i.e. in Epic) you get access to an untyped feat that can add 4 to a NAD.To recap, the claim is that a Sorcerer and Ranger deal identical amounts of damage per encounter because they are both Strikers.  This is false.  And it's more obviously shown to be false by, for example the PHB Warlock and the PHB Ranger.  With the ranger dealing a lot more damage than the warlock, despite both being Strikers.  The Warlock on the other hand being a secondary controller, something you apparently don't think exists in the PHB.Your claim is both conceptually and empirically wrong.This is neither true for optimised 3.X nor for optimised 4E.  An optimised 3E character is a Tier 1 caster and can do almost literally anything.  An optimised 4E character is generally very broadly competent (the 4E skill system being flexible) and can cover slack.  You appear to be confusing DPR Challenges and the like with in play optimisation.None of this is true either.First, classes in the PHB have subclasses.  The most obvious one is the Warlock with Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, and Star Pact being subclasses that handle things very differently.  All classes in the PHB have subclasses.Second, there is a deliberate correlation between power source and role that's especially evident in the PHB.  All martial characters are secondary strikers (meaning that the Ranger is a double striker and so the most single target damaging class in the game).  All divine characters are secondary leaders (with the Cleric doubling up on the leadership while the Warlord does more damage as it's a secondary striker).  All arcane characters are secondary controllers, which is why the Warlock is superb at handing out awkward choices.  And all Primal characters are secondary defenders - very tough and the classes most likely to throw around Spirit Companions or shrug off conditions.This was all there right in the PHB.The intended design just isn't what you think it is.  You can not play a member of that class without getting things out of that class/role.  But how much you choose to focus on it is entirely up to you.  A fighter built for damage can outdamage a warlock built for control.  For that matter I've played a warlock that was regularly being outdamaged by the party mage (evoker/pyromancer).  But did that mean I was unhappy?  Not at all.  My feypact warlock (officially a striker) was the one giving the DM fits and refusing to let the monsters do their thing.  Sometimes by charging and hitting the enemy over the head with his staff to get the slide to push them off whatever ledge they were on.  (I got a lot of weird looks when I tried that little stunt in the second round of the first encounter I played with that group).  In short my warlock was for all practical purposes a controller, handing out blindness, to hit debuffs, and immobilising foes.Nowhere in the rules to 3E or in the rules to 4E does it say that encounters must be fair in any way, shape, or form.  This is a common misconception.  What balanced mechanics do is tell the DM when the encounter is unfair.That said, there was a shift towards fair encounters starting in 3.0.  This happened when the Forge of Fury, entirely in line with the guidance, dropped a Roper into the basement.  And there were howls of outrage from players getting TPK'd by that thing.  (I've played the Forge of Fury - we decided that the Roper was not something we wanted to tangle with).</blockquote>

Verification