Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 9142347" data-attributes="member: 6901101">And...I am seventh level and did 54 points of damage in a single round. Granted, it was great rolling, but do I need to do more? Do I have to do more than the paladin? Do I always have to beat the ranger? The warlock? The bard? I would love, just love, for one time, for someone to post a video of their game, of three to four sessions, just to see how much that +1 or +2 is needed. I am willing to bet it's rarer than people believe. You are not losing &quot;a lot&quot; of damage. In fact, the weapon you choose has the same or greater impact on your damage than that +1. ASI complaints ignored: all the cool racial feats, and the ability to get to dive deeper into a culture you want to explore as a player. Also, you get additional points in a skill that rounds out your character better. And, you get to choose skills that help show the culture you're trying to roleplay. But no. The &quot;I have to have this, and it's not fair&quot; crowd insisted.Just once... just once... I would like to see a complaint that didn't involve someone wanting something that made their character stronger. But that never happens. Almost every change is an increase in power, which is why people that complain are often called powergamers or min/maxers. Imagine the outcry if this happened: All cantrips should only do 1d4 damage, this way martial classes always do more damage - you know, since that's what they specialize in. The spellcasters have other things like fly and invisibility that makes them equal in the long run. Have you ever seen that? Probably not. The reason is the people that complain are boxed in by needing that extra +1, or needing to be able to do the best damage, have the best AC, technically, to be great at all pillars. For them, being ok at a pillar is not enough. For them, for reasons I can't understand, it ruins their immersion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 9142347, member: 6901101"] And... I am seventh level and did 54 points of damage in a single round. Granted, it was great rolling, but do I need to do more? Do I [I]have [/I]to do more than the paladin? Do I always have to beat the ranger? The warlock? The bard? I would love, just love, for one time, for someone to post a video of their game, of three to four sessions, just to see how much that +1 or +2 is needed. I am willing to bet it's rarer than people believe. You are not losing "a lot" of damage. In fact, the weapon you choose has the same or greater impact on your damage than that +1. ASI complaints ignored: all the cool racial feats, and the ability to get to dive deeper into a culture you want to explore as a player. Also, you get additional points in a skill that rounds out your character better. And, you get to choose skills that help show the culture you're trying to roleplay. But no. The "I have to have this, and it's not fair" crowd insisted. Just once... just once... I would like to see a complaint that didn't involve someone wanting something that made their character stronger. But that never happens. Almost every change is an increase in power, which is why people that complain are often called powergamers or min/maxers. Imagine the outcry if this happened: All cantrips should only do 1d4 damage, this way martial classes always do more damage - you know, since that's what they specialize in. The spellcasters have other things like fly and invisibility that makes them equal in the long run. Have you ever seen that? Probably not. The reason is the people that complain are boxed in by needing that extra +1, or needing to be able to do the best damage, have the best AC, technically, to be great at all pillars. For them, being ok at a pillar is not enough. For them, for reasons I can't understand, it ruins their immersion. [/QUOTE]

Verification