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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4757208" data-attributes="member: 2011">What does the player do?He wants to play a Wizard. He needs good Intelligence. The book also tells him that he needs Wisdom and Dexterity. So, he beefs up Wisdom and Dexterity after Intelligence. The book tells him that Eladrin make good Wizards. So, he takes an Eladrin. Oh boy, +1 Will and +2 Will for Wizard. He also put 12 into Constitution because that's hit points baby.He's not Jhaelen. He does not know the ins and outs of the game system.He just puts together what looks to be a reasonable Eladrin Wizard. He then bumps Intelligence along with Wisdom and Dexterity because the book told him to do that.He takes the Paragon level Great Fortitude feat. It doesn't help at all. He is still getting hit all of the time when that Fort is targeted.So, I ask again. How exactly is this player supposed to get three balanced NADs?There is only ONE feat in the book and that one does not help significantly. He followed the guidelines in the PHB and still got screwed. He is even more screwed if he doesn't bump Int at every opportunity because of the to hit math problem.You are sitting here blaming him. I blame the game system. The game COULD have 3 ability score increases every 3 to 4 levels instead of 2. That would help alleviate the issue and there is nothing to indicate that this is unbalanced.The game system COULD have been designed like any other good system. Work out an incredibly stable system mathematically first, then add the extras instead of the other way around.And it is easy to see that this was not done. If this had been done, the designers would not have had to fix Heavy Armor.The designers would not have had to add in ridiculously potent permanent +2 to all 3 defenses, permanent +4 to a single defense, and permanent +3 to hit feats. I cannot even comprehend how people cannot see how mathematically unbalanced these are in a game system that is littered with only permanent +1s and +2s (for a single game element, not 3 defenses simultaneously). To suddenly throw permanent +3s and +4s into the system shouts screw up correction.I think people are so used to the old 3E concept of +4 here and there (e.g. prone +4) that +3 and +4 do not seem as large as they actually are. Either that, or the power gamers are just having wet dreams over these feats.4E cut the modifiers in half from 3E, just to get down to +1s and +2s. To suddenly throw in permanent +3s and +4s is a 180 degree turn around in bonus modifier philosophy.In fact, when one reads of the vast plethora of different ideas and systems that they tried out and later discarded, it is not surprising that they got a mathematical hodgepodge out of it in the end.Aura damage does a lot less damage than attacks.Aura damage can partially or fully be negated by magical items.There are ~23 Auras in the MM. There are ~219 Reflex, ~138 Will, and ~184 Fort attacks in the MM.The weak NAD does not have these advantages to this level. They tend to take 2 to 4 times the amount of damage of an aura with the same monsters, often take a conditional as well, and happen a LOT more often.An aura is a rare annoyance. A weak NAD attack, especially when the monster concentrates on that PC is a lot more serious and a lot more frequent.This is an apples and oranges comparison.</blockquote>

Verification