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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 4993191" data-attributes="member: 63763">That is a great way of explaining the problem someone had with the Avenger CharOp guide. It was a guide on turning the Avenger from a rattlesnake into a spider. EDIT: On the Spike/Timmy/Johnny thing: Any of them can optimize. The difference is what do they optimize. For Timmy it would be finding a way to deal the most damage. Some of the "how to make the biggest attack in a single turn" builds would work that way. It may not necessarily have the best dps, but it builds for the once per day bombs and stuff like that. For Johnny, they find a combination (like Eyebite with Divine Challenge) and find a way to optimize it. Spike doesn't just optimize something, but optimizes the optimal choice in the first place. For example, if Spike is going to be a striker, he won't optimize a warlock because an optimized warlock isn't as "good" as an optimized striker of another class. EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo Vorthos/Melvin is definitely something that fits into D&D. From a design perspective it seems to fit sort of top down design vs. bottom up design. For Vorthos, the mechanics should fit the flavor while for Melvin, great mechanics are important, and the flavor can come in later. I'm a total Melvin, and I really appreciate some of the mechanical unity of 4e class design as a result. The Warlord and Warden could be seen as Melvin type concepts (creating a new class for the role/power source combinations that are "necessary" to fill things out) while the Monk is the redheaded stepchild of the psionics in part because it's more important that it "be the monk" than for it to be forced into fitting into the mechanical "whole" of psionics.</blockquote>

Verification