Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BoldItalic" data-source="post: 7123974" data-attributes="member: 6777052">From what you describe, your game is going great and as long as everyone is having fun (which they clearly are) you are certainly doing it right. Don't overthink your character choices, though; go with whatever feels right for your character.My advice would be, not to go for options that involve improving your weapon attacks but instead develop other, more imaginative, ways to overcome monsters. This might seem strange but from what you are now telling us, your DM is setting up a treadmill situation where he rewards you with increasing plusses to your attack rolls (via generous ability scores, uber-magic weapons and so on) but raises the AC of his monsters to cancel them out, leaving you in reality no better off. It will feel exciting for a while, until you suddenly realise that it makes all your efforts a bit pointless and the game becomes hollow.That's not to say that he's doing it wrong - there is no &quot;wrong&quot; in D&amp;D - but if he were playing 5th edition &quot;by the book&quot;, you wouldn't get a legendary +3 sword of the kind you describe until about level 17, by which time the whole campaign would nearly be over anyway. You wouldn't get one, because you wouldn't need one.What this means, in the context of your original question, is that the advice you have been given regarding the relative merits of different feats, manoeuvres and so on, may need to be rethought a little because the underlying assumptions that we normally make - particularly a concept we call &quot;Bounded Accuracy&quot; - don't really apply to your game.tl;dr - choose options that sound fun and don't worry about getting them &quot;right&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BoldItalic, post: 7123974, member: 6777052"] From what you describe, your game is going great and as long as everyone is having fun (which they clearly are) you are certainly doing it right. Don't overthink your character choices, though; go with whatever feels right for your character. My advice would be, not to go for options that involve improving your weapon attacks but instead develop other, more imaginative, ways to overcome monsters. This might seem strange but from what you are now telling us, your DM is setting up a treadmill situation where he rewards you with increasing plusses to your attack rolls (via generous ability scores, uber-magic weapons and so on) but raises the AC of his monsters to cancel them out, leaving you in reality no better off. It will feel exciting for a while, until you suddenly realise that it makes all your efforts a bit pointless and the game becomes hollow. That's not to say that he's doing it wrong - there is no "wrong" in D&D - but if he were playing 5th edition "by the book", you wouldn't get a legendary +3 sword of the kind you describe until about level 17, by which time the whole campaign would nearly be over anyway. You wouldn't get one, [i]because you wouldn't need one.[/i] What this means, in the context of your original question, is that the advice you have been given regarding the relative merits of different feats, manoeuvres and so on, may need to be rethought a little because the underlying assumptions that we normally make - particularly a concept we call "Bounded Accuracy" - don't really apply to your game. tl;dr - choose options that sound fun and don't worry about getting them "right". [/QUOTE]

Verification