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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herschel" data-source="post: 5987587" data-attributes="member: 78357">I'd say it worked out normally.  With the Shielding Swordmage, you built it. You looked at the elements, thought how they worked, built as you played for how you played and, just as importantly, how the group played and DM played. I'm not at all surprised you have a "better" character building that way.  With teh Fighter you essentially had a concept and "net decked" it. I've found that's a bad way to build a character for two reasons: 1. Much of Char-Op is actually Theory-Op and not practical for extended play. It also makes assumptions that the DM, monsters and even the rest of your party are going to be Blocks of Tofu. 2. You don't think about your character build, you just do it. You don't feel the synergies nor feel the playstyle because you're trying to play to the concept/build rather than the other way around.  I'll give you another example: I've played an Assault Swordmage for 19 levels, and I can build a Swordmage with anyone that I can play six ways to Sunday. I've taken some elements (including Paragon Path) that Char-Op doesn't rate very highly but I've built a very good Defender because it fits my playstyle and has synergies that work better in practice than on paper.  Conversely, I played with an Op'd Paladin in high Paragon and saw a bunch of cool stuff on his character sheet but realized I had no feel for how any of it worked together.</blockquote>

Verification