Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 4398615" data-attributes="member: 40455">OP here.&nbsp; Thanks everyone for chiming in on the thread, although it's gone off on a little bit of a tangent.My concern in this thread wasn't&nbsp; because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective.&nbsp; Maybe I still have the 3.5 mindset, but I've had several bad experiences where I've chosen &quot;concept&quot; over &quot;effectiveness&quot;, and those times have always resulted in me sitting around twiddling my thumbs because I can't contribute anything meaningful to the group.My original concept was a &quot;canon&quot; Dragonborn (i.e. proud, honrable, military bent), who was using what amounted to a &quot;Weapon of Legacy&quot; (this part requires DM approval, of course); a glaive used by an illustrious ancestor centuries ago at the fall of Arkhosia, the Dragonborn Empire.&nbsp; The optimization part of it was largely picking feats/abilities that meshed well with the concept, not optimization like you'd find on the Wizards CO boards (that sort of optimization appals me, truth me told).&nbsp; After giving it some thought (and yes, I admit it's partly because I read that using a 2H weapon is &quot;a trap&quot;), I'm considering a sword &amp; board character for two main reasons (one being flavor, one being rules):#1: AC is better than damage, since I know that the party has a Dwarf Cleric (Leader), Eladrin Ranger (Striker), Eladrin Rogue (Striker) and Eladrin Wizard (Controller), but not a defender in sight (There was a Dwarf Fighter, but the player dropped out).&nbsp; Also, except for myself, the DM and another player who is the Eladrin Rogue, the other three are completely new to D&amp;D and roleplaying.&nbsp; This means that I can't bank on much teamwork and cooperation, simply because it might be new to them and they're learning the rules.&nbsp; Therefore, as a defender I think being &quot;sticky&quot; might be the better choice to better work with the group, to help foster teamwork.#2: The way magic items work in 4E, I would need to get the DM to do some kind of weird house rule in order for my concept to work, since he's using his ancestor's glaive and would never, ever get rid of it in favor of another item.&nbsp; 4E seems to assume that you'll pick up/discard weapons as better ones come along.&nbsp; While I'm sure that it wouldn't be a problem to house rule, and would'nt be unbalanced (I would still pay the gold to enchant the item, just it would be the same item, instead of a new one), I am only just joining the group so I don't want to seem too imposing or look like a &quot;spotlight hog&quot; by demanding special rules for my character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wayne62682, post: 4398615, member: 40455"] OP here. Thanks everyone for chiming in on the thread, although it's gone off on a little bit of a tangent. My concern in this thread wasn't because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective. Maybe I still have the 3.5 mindset, but I've had several bad experiences where I've chosen "concept" over "effectiveness", and those times have always resulted in me sitting around twiddling my thumbs because I can't contribute anything meaningful to the group. My original concept was a "canon" Dragonborn (i.e. proud, honrable, military bent), who was using what amounted to a "Weapon of Legacy" (this part requires DM approval, of course); a glaive used by an illustrious ancestor centuries ago at the fall of Arkhosia, the Dragonborn Empire. The optimization part of it was largely picking feats/abilities that meshed well with the concept, not optimization like you'd find on the Wizards CO boards (that sort of optimization appals me, truth me told). After giving it some thought (and yes, I admit it's partly because I read that using a 2H weapon is "a trap"), I'm considering a sword & board character for two main reasons (one being flavor, one being rules): #1: AC is better than damage, since I know that the party has a Dwarf Cleric (Leader), Eladrin Ranger (Striker), Eladrin Rogue (Striker) and Eladrin Wizard (Controller), but not a defender in sight (There was a Dwarf Fighter, but the player dropped out). Also, except for myself, the DM and another player who is the Eladrin Rogue, the other three are completely new to D&D and roleplaying. This means that I can't bank on much teamwork and cooperation, simply because it might be new to them and they're learning the rules. Therefore, as a defender I think being "sticky" might be the better choice to better work with the group, to help foster teamwork. #2: The way magic items work in 4E, I would need to get the DM to do some kind of weird house rule in order for my concept to work, since he's using his ancestor's glaive and would never, ever get rid of it in favor of another item. 4E seems to assume that you'll pick up/discard weapons as better ones come along. While I'm sure that it wouldn't be a problem to house rule, and would'nt be unbalanced (I would still pay the gold to enchant the item, just it would be the [I]same[/I] item, instead of a new one), I am only just joining the group so I don't want to seem too imposing or look like a "spotlight hog" by demanding special rules for my character. [/QUOTE]

Verification