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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6262160" data-attributes="member: 58416">I want to say I didn't have the problem in 4th, but I did; on some occasions far worse than it was in 3.5.  I've been a player in 4E games where the DM literally just ended the campaign because the PC group was so out of control with what they could do.  I remember the first campaign to 30 ending with one of the PCs essentially solo-ing Orcus.  The other members of the party didn't contribute because we really didn't need to, and the encounter was over so quickly that there wasn't much for us to do.  Part of that was due to the early 4E monster math not really working, and also due to some of the PC options which allowed that being pretty obviously broken (and later changed in official updates to the game.)Unfortunately, things did not change after the updates to the game.  The second campaign to 30 ended with the group so thoroughly crushing the first part of the campaign's end battle that the DM didn't see the point in playing out the second part, and thus simply declared we had won because he didn't feel like running the game anymore at that point.  Part of the problem with why he was so burned out here is because the PCs completely destroying everything in their way had been pretty status quo from about level 12 in the game.  I hate to brag, but the best way that I can convey just how thoroughly the collective player group (and their respective characters) dominated things during that campaign is to say that we took time to make a coat of arms for the character group involved in that game.  To this day, mention of "The Stormbringers" is a sore spot for the guy who DMed that game.  The most recent game ended before paragon because things were already starting to get a little out of control at level 8.  I'll admit to being part of the problem in this game, but it was completely on accident that I broke that game.  Since I hadn't really messed with hybrid characters before, I wanted to try one.  I also had a concept for a character which seemed (to me) to be pretty cool.  Thus, Mer Tzu, the warlord/wizard was born.  It frustrated the DM that I (as well as a few other members of the party) had such a high AC which I could boost even further by using the utility power shield in the event that someone did actually miraculously manage to hit me.  I had honestly zero intent of playing a broken character and just put together what seemed cool to me.  I realized that using hybrids in this discussion isn't helpful because they are a known problem, but the reason I made that character was because my previous character was putting out amounts of damage which bothered the DM.  He never said anything about it, but I could tell it was an issue.  What really pushed things over the edge was that other characters in the same game were just as bad.  The problem with these 4E games was a little different than 3rd; it wasn't that the characters weren't balanced against each other; the issue was that the characters were so far beyond the expectations of the world they existed in that it was disruptive to the game.None of the above defends 3rd though.  I have not at all exaggerated in other threads when I've said that the group used to have to ask the guy who normally played a wizard to not doing anything for a few rounds so that the rest of us would actually get to play.  It was already bad enough to have one class which was quite clearly better than the others; putting that class in the hands of a player who was also quite clearly more skilled than some of the other players just made things even worse.  In a recent attempt by the group to play Pathfinder, the same player was using a Summoner, and it essentially ruined the group's ability to enjoy Pathfinder.I can't speak on behalf of 1st.  I do own some of the reprints, but have only just barely dabbled in trying to use them.  Though, if this makes any sense, I will say that I can look at 1e adventures and pick up what appears to be a different mentality behind the design of the game.  While I've had barely any experience playing 1e, I have played some of the adventures using different rules systems.  Maybe it's crazy to try to extrapolate what the game is like via an adventure played using a completely different rules system, but I feel as though (in spite of using the material with different rules,) I have some sense of what the game is like.  I am inclined to agree with your statement that things are different in 1e, but I cannot honestly say that's how I feel without more hands on experience with it.The short version of how the encounter went was like this...  me: I cast web.dm: (after rolling) the enemy is stuckother player: I shoot them with my bowme: I use magic missiledm: they're still stuckother player: I shoot them with my bowme: I use magic missiledm: they're still stuckother player: I shoot them with my bowme: I use magic missiledm: they're deadThat was from an old packet though.  I have no idea how web may have changed from then to now.  I plan to find out during the next season.  For next season, I plan to either play a wizard or a druid.  I've even considered wizard/druid just out of curiosity to see how the 3E character I am currently playing (multiclass wizard/druid) would translate into 5th Edition.</blockquote>

Verification