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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6693171" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Defensive much?  Not to mention that its in line with your observations, as flawed as they are?  As for calling it theory craft when its been more than supported by both personal experience and the experience of others?  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Yes, high HP or high AC are very good for tanks.  They're tanks, that's what they do.  However, you completely miss that there are other avenues of damage mitigation for those not playing a tank, and doesn't relegate them to the "junior leages." Yes, Great Weapon Mastery and Polearm Mastery are powerful.  So are Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter (which you didn't discuss), and Shield Mastery (you complained that sword-and-board was not worth using; it is).  No, there aren't very good spellcaster feats, but many of us have found ways to play them to keep competative with a GWM Polarm, Crossbow Sharpshooter, and the other powerful martial feats.  Your observations, while accurate for the characters you're presented with, do not add up to your conclusions.  You note that your players think that control spells are too heavily nerfed, and so fall back onto fireballing everything.  Spells require a different mindset than in previous editions on how to use them. Your explanation doesn't mesh with how many others have experienced the game, which begs questions.  The characters in question then tried to then focus on damage when your two example classes really don't excell at damage dealing, making it an unequal comparison in the first place.  This is like trying to build a Dex-based two weapon fighting berzerker, and wondering why its performance is lackluster.  Builds matter.You then asked, "why include squishy spellcasters in the team at all?"  And I challenged your assumptions, because they are flawed.  You don't like it?  Fine.  But being dismissive of my claims doesn't change anything.</blockquote>

Verification