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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazydwarf" data-source="post: 4448231" data-attributes="member: 73982">Yes I knew this, I made a rough estimate and did not account for magic or feats etc. And I took care in mentioning this aswell.However I disagree that 45 is "far more" when a monster (or group of monsters collectivly) may have 1000+ HP in comparison. Right, can you try again, and keep it simple for my stupidity's sake <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />All these formulas and math only cause me confusion rather than helping me grasp the concept. I'll try to make a simple example:A fighter has his plate armour and a one handed weapon. Now he's looking to "upgrade" by mundane means. His options are:1. Grab a shield to boost his defence2. Grab a bigger weapon to boost his offence3. Grab a secondary weapon to boost both "half-way" The problem as I see it is that 1 seems to outshine 2 by quite some margin (and certainly 3 since that eats some feats before it can even become an option) I have some houserules in mind (I wont go into detail about them to avoid derailing and hogging the thread).But before I present them to my group and DM I feel I need to know if my opinion is true or imagined. Otherwise I risk unbalancing the game completly, since they will likely agree to my houserules without much thought.Sadly besides the DM, I'm the only one in the group that even know any rules at all <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /> But since shields seems to have this great advantage, and we assume a powergamer style wich chooses advantage > fluff at all times.Then reaping strike is unlikely to end up as one of the at-wills....Ever. Cool, I'll admit to not knowing more about the warlord class other than a quick read through.But that still seems very situational. I must assume that I will rarely have knowledge of what class/race my friends will play at all times, my group atleast doesnt really plan our characters together, and let personal preference go before balanced out group. This might be a bad thing overall, and particularly in AD&D..But thats just how we roll <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I also assume to have no prior knowledge about the DM's plans and cannot account for what enemies we will face or where. There is so much uncertainty other than what my PC's strengths and weaknesses will be, and when the game presents my options as "defense or stupidity" rather than "defence or offence" I get a bit grumpy <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification