Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4728696" data-attributes="member: 30001">I find the idea of having to choose specific monsters with specific tactics in order to pose a challenge to a character really unpleasant.   I don't consider it some kind of "abusive" min-maxing for a fighter to choose a feat that works well with his powers.  The problem IMO is the broken feat, not the player, and IMO it's really cheesy to start throwing powerful monsters at the players until you guilt them back into making sub-optimal choices.   A monster should be a challenge for PCs based on it's level, with some adjustment for tactics and match-ups and stuff.  But if power-gaming feat combos start becoming more important than level (ie. a monster who can otherwise challenge a party is a joke when facing someone with polearm gamble), then I think 4E has broken a design goal that I thought it had.  IMO game mastery shouldn't be that important to your character's power.  You would presume that the fighters of the world have already determined the optimal attack strategies and training.  The reason that people don't fight with spoons is because people have already figured out what the better weapons are.  I'd rather my players just worry about their characters 'character', and not that they've missed some magic feat combo.</blockquote>