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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5559005" data-attributes="member: 3424">All this talk about mathematical proof made me recall a thought experiment that I did, way back when 4E was just released. I developed a 5-PC party that could kill Orcus in five rounds, as long as nobody rolled a natural 1 on any attack (past the first round or so of set up attacks). I am now releasing my raw, unedited notes for your reading pleasure. Now, some of the rules exploits that I made use of in the notes have since been errata'ed, e.g. the ranger/pit fighter no longer gets to add his Wisdom bonus to the damage rolls of ranger powers, the warlord's lead the attack now only grants a power bonus to attack rolls for one round*, the demigod encounter power recovery system has changed, and there may be a few others. However, I am fairly sure that whatever I have in the document was rules-legal at the time.Note that the characters aren't fully fleshed out - not all their feat slots are filled and I did not equip them with anything beyond vanilla +6 magic items (I didn't need to). The battleground is also ignored and the thought experiment assumes that they start fairly close to Orcus. However, they key point is: they did not have Expertise and all of them could hit Orcus as long as they didn't roll a 1.The round-by-round breakdown of the fight starts on page 11.* To mitigate this problem, the warlord selects thunderous fury as his 17th-level encounter power instead of swapping it out for anvil of doom since the party needs more attack bonuses instead of stunning. He uses it in Round 3 (when he would use anvil of doom in the original document) and grants a +9 power bonus to attack rolls until the end of his turn in Round 4.EDIT: I should further add that apart from the warlord's genasi race, I believe that most of the rules material was from just the first PH. Most of the splatbooks weren't even released then.</blockquote>

Verification