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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4758401" data-attributes="member: 46713">*blinks*I'll start with the easier second comment: I already mentioned auras in my previous post. Yes, they're auto-hit powers, and apparently, nobody is worried about _those_.About the first comment: Thanks for the example! Now how is this different from a power that (almost) auto-hits a character with a single, particularly low defense?I'll give you a hint: It isn't auto-hit against characters for which the targeted defense is high.Thanks, I must have missed those. Do these already include feats?If they don't, then the lowest defense can (and probably will) actually be 2 higher.But it's interesting that the the rogue has the lowest defense of all them. Even though I picked a different race/build for my example rogue it was the one with the lowest defense overall.Now there's just one next step for you to take: Imagine that your example characters are a party of adventurers encountering a mix of monsters in a level-equivalent encounter. Then you have a meaningful example. If you don't think a single encounter is representative, pick several different ones. At level 24 I found 17 different sample encounters in the MM1, there's probably a similar number of example encounters for level 25.Apparently, politeness means something else in your area.Since I'm sure we all agree that we aren't babies here, you can stop pointing it out in every post. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you think your position is so weak that you feel unable to defend it without resorting to rudeness.I'd have to check if attacks vs. NADs are actually more likely to have nasty effects than attacks vs. AC.But the reason why NAD attacks have a better chance to hit than other attacks should be obvious, since it's the same reason why a PC's attack powers targetting NADs have a higher chance to hit: They're _meant_ to be more accurate.For the easiest example compare the rogues at will powers 'deft strike' and 'piercing strike'.Which one does more damage?I mostly agree. I disagree, though, that they generally get combat advantage more often.You don't take one important advantage for the pcs into account:When a monster drops, it's dead.When a pc drops, she's dying.This means she's probably going to be back up on her feet right away (or in the worst case after a couple of rounds).Monsters may often have the advantage of picking the place where a combat encounter starts. But that doesn't mean the pcs will have to continue fighting on the monsters' terms.In contrast to 3E, retreating is often a valid and useful tactic in 4E.Sure!First: at higher levels you'll find more powers that actually mean your NADs are irrelevant, e.g. immediate reactions.Second: You'll have _more_ powers available at higher levels. This means you'll be able to have ecnounter-changing daily powers available in _every_ encounter.Third, many powers grant an advantage based on a character's ability scores. Last time I checked this means the bonus will typically be higher in paragon and epic tiers.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Touche!Yep. Did you actually read them?The first one is about problems encountered by a DM trying to use only 'meaningful' encounters (i.e. level+4 or higher) which lead to his players picking every conceivable method to improve their healing resources and taking extended rests after every encounter.The second, well, the second, how is that discussion relevant here? The only relevance I see is that it could be interpreted to mean that solo monsters aren't dangerous even though they have attacks that auto-hit the pcs all the time and inflict nasty conditions on them. Is that what you meant?Regarding the last: are you referring to the 'Does anyone else feel "the grind"?'. Actually, it contains lots of empiricial evidence that "the grind" is often a home-made problem. Of course it also contains examples that will support your position. I guess this means we're either both right or both wrong, huh?Well, what arguments are you referring to? The ones that I feel are entirely theoretical and are completely irrelevant in a realistic encounter? Yep, I keep ignoring those.The arguments that I consider relevant, however, I have already addressed.Well, you've summarized your points before. If you carefully examine my previous posts you will notice that I disagree with some of them and agree with others. But all in all my conclusion is different from yours.</blockquote>

Verification