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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="soviet" data-source="post: 9695794" data-attributes="member: 6925338">It occurs to me you might find this interesting. I'm a player in a very long-running D&D campaign that always uses the current ruleset and started under 2e. We're currently at level 16. We've been using 2014 5e and will switch to A5e soon. My character is a fighter/ranger/barbarian. I like to think I'm pretty good at optimisation and that my build is sort of the best way to translate a legacy solely-martial character into a tier where those things are not very strong. What my GM sees is that because I have a relatively high AC, the Lucky feat, OK saves, and stacks of hit points from the Toughness feat, plus I tend to play quite tactically, my character is very hard to kill and may even be overpowered.What I see is that yes I'm hard to put down but I don't do anything. I steam in and have fun and hit the bad guys for 1d10+10 damage a couple of times a round while making a nuisance of myself. All the real enemies and problems are solved by the level 16 cleric and the level 16 warlock/assassin. I can't do much at range, or to flyers, or to invisible creatures. Realistically the enemies should just ignore me and take out the spellcasters. But because they don't do that, and the GM seems to notice how characters are at the end of the fight rather than what they did during the fight, I've been told my L16 barbarian is the more powerful of the two. It's telling that when I read back the GM's journal of each week's session I continually see situations where I hit an orc for seven points of damage, while the cleric used flame strike to take out the rest of the warband, mashed together and reframed as 'the fighter and the cleric defeated the orcs'.</blockquote>

Verification